See Feingold gets it. People aren't actually listening to what Obama and Holder said

[Thrill]

"The president has stated that it is not his administration's intention to prosecute those who acted reasonably and relied in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice. As I understand it, his decision does not mean that anyone who engaged in activities that the Department had not approved, those who gave improper legal advice or those who authorized the program could not be prosecuted. The details made public in these memos paint a horrifying picture and reveal how the Bush administration's lawyers and top officials were complicit in torture. The so-called enhanced interrogation program was a violation of our core principles as a nation and those responsible should be held accountable."

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/russ_feingolds_reaction.php

[CTLawGuy]

1. these are facts

they get in the way of anger, so those who thrive on anger ignore them.

[Thrill]

4. Obama and Holder are very smart. If you read the statements. They are very carefully worded

.

[Dinger]

59. Carefully Worded, You Mean Like A "Sternly Worded Letter"?

Good, I am so reassured.:sarcasm:

[The Hope Mobile]

87. More like carefully worded so that they can still go after the guys who

chose to be abusive on their own, not that were forced to do so.

[RaleighNCDUer]

102. as well as the guys giving the orders. nt

[Cha]

93. We liked that about Obama..

that he was very smart and one of the reasons I supported him.:)

[ginnyinWI]

100. Think Progress agrees.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/17/door-open-for-torture-prosecutions/

There is still room to prosecute. We always have to keep in mind how smart Obama is and not jump to conclusions. I learned, watching him during the campaign, that you have to wait a few days or weeks to see his reasoning unfold.

[Cha]

122. I learned it too..too

bad so many are unable to grasp that simple fact.

[MNBrewer]

127. OH

:puke:

[urgk]

55. Well it's hard to run around like Chicken Little...

..yelling "OUR CANDIDATE IS FALLING!! OUR CANDIDATE IS FALLING!!!!" if one actually stops to read the facts and try to consider anything past the surface, CNN version of the events.

I'm all for arguing with the man and his stance on any particular issue, but what I see in the forums is too often the opposite of this OP -- people running around making wild declarations based on sound bites rather than anything like analysis.

[EFerrari]

113. The "fact" is that these memos were written AFTER the torture program began

-- months after. So, no, the CIA had no cover at all for what they did that wasn't fitted around their torturing after the fact.

[alcibiades_mystery]

2. Let's review

CIA officers, getting heavy pressure from VP's goon squad to torture suspects, go to Justice, seeking advice. Justice, also owned by the Bush admin, states unequivocally that the techniques are legal. The United States Department of Justice. Now DUers are upset that the CIA officers won't be prosecuted.

Is that about the speed of it?

[scheming daemons]

3. Yep... that's about it

[uponit7771]

5. +1 !!!

[pat_k]

16. Yep. "Just following orders" doesn't excuse war crimes. . .

Even Obama's excuse for his derelict refusal to prosecute either those who ordered, sanctioned, or inflicted "treatment" that is the very definition of inhumane, cruel, and degrading, doesn't fly.

i.e., "those who acted reasonably. . ."

It is simply not "reasonable" to believe that subjecting a human being to the following does not qualify as inhumane, cruel, or degrading treatment under ANY definition.

• confining a person in a box;
• bashing a persons head against a wall;
• depriving them of sleep for days;
• forcing them into a crouched position for days;
• filling their lungs with water. . .

the horrors go on and on.

No White House memo can alter reality. Those who failed to "Just Say No" when ordered to abuse and torture their captives, did so with full knowledge of the law and the risk of prosecution. We subject those who commit war crimes to life imprisonment (or death, if the abused person dies) for a reason. To provide officials a Powerful motivation to steer clear of ANY acts that are even "questionable."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5473776&mesg_id=5473776

[alcibiades_mystery]

22. They weren't White House memos

They were memos that the CIA requested from Justice specifically to rule on the legality of these techniques. So they weren't "just following orders." They first requested specific legal advice on the quality of those orders, and they were presented with these memoranda. It seems a bit of a different thing.

Needless to say, the CIA agents should have resigned their posts immediately upon receiving these memoranda.

[pat_k]

32. Sorry. Used White House as short for "Executive Branch". . .

. . .and DOJ (OLC) is certainly an Executive Agency.

The fact that they questioned the "orders" and sought legal cover demonstrates consciousness of guilt. Reality is tough to escape and, by any measure, bashing a persons head against a wall (up to 30 times), filling their lungs with water, confining them in a box, and on and on, qualify as "inhumane, cruel, or degrading," and as such are blatant violations of Article III of the Geneva Conventions prohibited under U.S.C Title 18, 2441. War Crimes. (The acts qualify as torture too, but an act doesn't have to "rise" to that level for a person to be subject to life imprisonment -- or the death penalty if the abused person dies.)

All the references to SERE in the memos emphasizes the fact that they were employing torture techniques Americans were subjected to in the Korean War. It is simply not rational to believe that torture techniques we are training Americans to resist are somehow not torture when inflicted on others.

[alcibiades_mystery]

36. It can just as easily be read as an attempt to get a ruling

They got one, and it may not even be the one they wanted. The Justice department said it was legal to proceed.

But you wanted everyone within 100 feet of a suspect to have resigned immediately upon receiving that ruling, right?

[pat_k]

49. "resign immediately" is precisely what any person

. . .ordered to participate in a war crime has an affirmative duty to do if there is no other way to stop the commission of the crime, or to avoid becoming a party to it.

Each and every person entrusted with power that can be abused to commit war crimes is bound by law to "Just Say No" and act to Stop the commission of such crimes. As Alberto Mora, General Counsel of the U.S. Navy did (http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/15">The Memo). As the JAG Corps members recently praised by Holder did. Many, like the NCIS and FBI personnel who refused to participate in Joint Task Force 170, actually did act reasonably.

As I have said, we subject those who commit war crimes to the ultimate penalty for a reason -- to give any person acting under color of law a powerful reason not to even APPROACH "the line." Those who committed the atrocities -- who bashed heads against walls; who filled lungs with water, who forced people into impossible positions for days; who "monitored" or otherwise enabled -- went WAY over the line.

No "ruling" or "memo" can transform a cruel, inhumane, and degrading act into a humane act. No memo can suspend reality and common sense. As Nuremberg demonstrated to the world, "I was just following orders" does not excuse the commission of war crimes prohibited by the U.S. Constitution and the treaties that are part and parcel of that document as the "supreme law of the land."

We must prosecute Bush, Cheney, and the other officials responsible for implementing and rubber stamping "the program." We must prosecute the employees who refused to say "no" when asked to commit outrages upon the persons in their custody. To do anything less renders the law meaningless and ensures that there will be officials in the future who believe they can commit any act, however abhorrent, with impunity, as long as some authority gives the "go ahead."

[alcibiades_mystery]

53. Nice speech

[high density]

54. Well you say one thing, Bush's Justice Department said otherwise

The Bush Justice Department legal opinion is more important than your (or my) opinion on this issue. The CIA is not expected to shop around for conflicting legal advice after Justice tells them they're all set to go.

[pat_k]

65. To bow to legalistic "opinion" that is contrary to

. . .all common sense and the plain intent of our Constitution and law is the height of fascism.

This is not the first time that fascists have appealed to legalistic technicality and "complexity" to trump reality and law, and it will not be the last.

It is lunacy to think the Constitution for the United States of America gives (or even might give) the Office of the President, or ANY agency of our Government, the power to flagrantly violate the laws ensuring the humane treatment of ANY person in our custody -- laws that many who came before us fought and died to make reality. Not even the fascists on the Supreme Court who violated their oaths and the Constitution to hand down the Bush v. Gore edict could not stomach ratifying the fascist fantasy that the captives in Guantanamo occupied some "new" category of captive that could be subjected to abuse. Presumably they did not wish to meet the same fate as the judges who stood trial in Nuremberg. Yoo and the other DOJ "lawyers" apparently did not have such qualms. To their misfortune, their unconscionable breach necessitates prosecution.

Tragically, too many Americans have been deceived into believing that they are helpless in the face of so-called "legal" authority. Even when there is absolutely Universal agreement that the so-called "authority" is engaged in a cynical abuse of "the law", too many have submitted to corrupt officials who tell us, "the law is the law."

No matter how long and complex, or how "scholarly and sophisticated" in form, when an opinion -- whatever the source -- yields results that are contrary to principles embodied in our Constitution, the opinion is a sham, and must be rejected as such. We the People are the only judges that matter. The law is intended to serve our will, not thwart it. If we are to preserve our constitutional democracy, ordinary Americans must trust their own judgment and unequivocally reject the sham.

The spread of this fascist view of the law has put our Constitution into breach for the past 8 years. And the Obama administration is failing to repair that breach, to our collective shame.

[Dr.Phool]

67. The first thing I was taught in boot camp, back in '69 was,

I had a duty to refuse an unlawful order, no matter where it came from!

[HamdenRice]

68. Ah, but that's where the DOJ ju jitsu came in

They didn't say, shut up and just follow orders. They said, I hear your concern, so let's do a careful analysis of whether what you're being asked to do is lawful. Surprise, surprise, it is!

What would you have done if you had questioned whether an order was lawful, and then received a careful, 20 page, seemingly reasonable opinion from the highest legal authorities in the land, saying the order was lawful? Would you still have refused to carry it out?

[Dr.Phool]

76. It don't wash. We're talking adults here. Who know right from wrong.

They've already been schooled in the Geneva Conventions. And the convention against torture. They knew better, and putting lipstick on a pig, don't make it any less of a pig.

These weren't stupid, easily mislead people. Some of the ones, "The Bad Apples", and other assorted scapegoats even enjoyed it. Look at Abu Gharib. Look at the innocent detainees in Afghanistan, who were systematically tortured and beaten to death.

A "seemingly reasonable opinion"? Not on your life.

On edit: There is no rule of law, when the law is not enforced. These people need long prison sentences. Not lifetime appointments to the federal bench, a'la, Bybee.

[high density]

79. Justice said it was lawful. "They knew better" isn't a way to prosecute these people

And that is why Obama and Holder took the position they took. The law was being enforced in the manner that the Justice Dept was issuing these memos. We can certainly demand that Obama change this interpretation, and the release of these memos plus the plan to close Gitmo seem to indicate he's way ahead of us already.

[pocoloco]

129. Did Germany have a justice department??

......Just checking.

[HamdenRice]

80. You're mixing a lot of different cases

"These people need long prison sentences. Not lifetime appointments to the federal bench, a'la, Bybee."

Well that's the whole point of the "legal opinion" analysis -- namely, that the people who wrote the opinions are liable for prosecution. No one in the administration said that the opinion writers will not be prosecuted, only those operational level people who relied on them.\

"Some of the ones, "The Bad Apples", and other assorted scapegoats even enjoyed it. Look at Abu Gharib. Look at the innocent detainees in Afghanistan, who were systematically tortured and beaten to death."

The administration's decision applies so far only to those CIA officials who relied on DOJ opinions to the CIA. It does not apply to military personnel at Abu Gharib.

[pat_k]

73. Hear, Hear! We never delegate such power without attendant duties

-- duties that are of absolute necessity if we are to preserve our government.

Whether it be the lethal power of weaponry, or the powers of office, the attendant duties are paramount. And it is our duty as citizens to see that the duties are carried out. When we allow corrupt individuals to exercise power unchecked, our nation is corrupted. As we are learning.

Tragically, few seem to recognize that our national crisis is rooted in past failures. Failure to impeach and prosecute Reagan and Bush I for Iran Contra; failure of Congress -- Our Voice -- to object to the counting of the unlawful Florida electors on January 20, 2001; the surrender of War Powers to a tyrant in the authorization to use force; failure to take up the fight impeach and remove Bush and Cheney. With each successive failure, consequences that were once unimaginable have come to pass. If we once again fail by refusing to prosecute, it is hard to imagine how we might ever find our way back on to the path "creating a more perfect union."

[davidwparker]

96. Thank you. This is what the military does when they cannot follow an order

they disagree with. It's about courage and conviction over doing what Simon says.

Didn't work during Germany's trials. Don't want to see it happen in my country. These people aren't novices. They knew exactly what they were doing was wrong.

[RaleighNCDUer]

103. Even when, upon their own initiative, they asked the highest legal

authority about it and that legal authority assured them it WAS legal, that it did NOT violate international or US law.

IOW, they were saying "this does not feel right - are you sure it's legal?", and the answer they got was "yes".

They did (in these specific cases) fulfill their obligation to question their orders - and received assurance that what they were doing was not illegal.

This, of course, does not apply to those who raped prisoners at Abu Ghraib, or who beat prisoners to death, or any of a number of other crimes which can still be prosecuted. If anything, this will provide cover for guards who saw such egregious violations to come forward without fear of prosecution themselves.

It is merely saying "we are not going to waste resources prosecuting Lynddie England, but are going after the real culprits".

[pat_k]

133. Absolutely. Why do you think we apply the ultimate penalty to. . .

. . .those who subject a person in the custody of the state to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment? Presumably, the risk of life in prison, or of being put to death if the abused person happens to die, would be enough to motivate a reasonable person to "Just Say No" to any act that may even "questionably" qualify as cruel, inhumane or degrading.

Suppose a murderer had been told by a crazy lawyer that the particular type of murder they intended to commit was legal. Such advice can't render one immune from prosecution. The indicted murderer would certainly be free to present the advice from the "authority" in their defense. It would then be up to the "finder of fact" (whether jury or judge) to decide whether or not reliance on such lunatic "authorization" actually excused the crime under the law.

Regardless of who might tell them otherwise, any person who actually believes that bashing a person's head against a wall 30 times; filling their lungs with water; depriving them of sleep for 7 days; forcing them into impossible positions for hours on end; on and on, does not qualify as "cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment" might have an insanity defense, but it's hard to imagine a judge or jury that would find the belief to be reasonable, and therefore a valid defense. But who knows? That's what we have trials for.

As succinctly put by Dr.Phool "The first thing I was taught in boot camp, back in '69 was,
I had a duty to refuse an unlawful order, no matter where it came from!"(http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8349135&mesg_id=8350460"> link)

Or less succinctly by me:

Each and every person entrusted with power that can be abused to commit war crimes is bound by law to "Just Say No" and act to Stop the commission of such crimes. As Alberto Mora, General Counsel of the U.S. Navy did (http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/15">The Memo). As the JAG Corps members recently praised by Holder did. Many, like the NCIS and FBI personnel who refused to participate in Joint Task Force 170, actually did act reasonably. . .

No "ruling" or "memo" can transform a cruel, inhumane, and degrading act into a humane act. No memo can suspend reality and common sense. As Nuremberg demonstrated to the world, "I was just following orders" does not excuse the commission of war crimes prohibited by the U.S. Constitution and the treaties that are part and parcel of that document as the "supreme law of the land."

We must prosecute Bush, Cheney, and the other officials responsible for implementing and rubber stamping "the program." We must prosecute the employees who refused to say "no" when asked to commit outrages upon the persons in their custody. To do anything less renders the law meaningless and ensures that there will be officials in the future who believe they can commit any act, however abhorrent, with impunity, as long as some authority gives the "go ahead."

[xxqqqzme]

84. exactly, They went to DoJ for exactly the reason

Obama excused their conduct. They went for CYA and the reason they needed to cover their asses is because they KNEW what they were doing was against federal and international law.

[tblue37]

126. I once read an interview with a former Gitmo guard who said that

they were deliberately trained to abuse the prisoners, and that he himself was assaulted by other guards for not sufficiently getting with the program.

When everyone is doing really bad things around you, they will try to force you to participate, to spread the guilt around, so that you won't dare to rat them out. Also, they might resort to violence against you if you stand on principle.

Just following orders is not a legal excuse, of course, but some of those people were undoubtedly afraid of losing their careers if they didn't follow orders--though, of course, that also isn't a good excuse, since a career is not as important as such basic human rights.

But the guard's story of being assaulted himself makes me wonder whether some of the individuals nearer the bottom of the food chain might have actually feared being subjected to violence if they made too much of a fuss about what was being done. I don't doubt that the sort of person who could torture a prisoner is perfectly capable of doing real harm to someone he considers to be disloyal or uncooperative in performing the same acts of torture. And I also believe that an institution that systematizes such torture would have no problem encouraging and covering up abuse of uncooperative people in the ranks.

I also believe that by protecting those lower down in the food chain, Obama might well be looking to encourage them to turn agains the big dogs in the operation, since they will not be at risk themselves if they spill the beans--the same way a prosecutor might offer immunity to a foot soldier in a crime syndicate in order to get testimony agains a crime boss.

Finally, saying he won't seek prosecution of CIA agents can buy him time and cover to have deep investigations done and collect airtight evidence to go after some bigger fish.

[pat_k]

134. All the "reasons" you cite can certainly be presented in ones defense. . ,

. . .but none of them qualify as legitimate reasons to refrain from prosecution.

We subject persons who commit war crimes to the ultimate punishments (life in prison, or the penalty of death if the abused person happens to die) because we hope that the prospect of the penalty will outweigh any "pressures" or excuses for committing the crimes.

We have an obligation under the Constitution, and the treaties that are part and parcel to it as the "supreme law of the land," to prosecute those who are suspects in war crimes. (Don't forget, we do not simply have an obligation NOT to torture. We have an obligation to treat humanely.)

In this case we have "confessions" -- we know the acts that were committed. There are witness and records of who participated in them. We have no Choice but to prosecute. The ONLY thing that failing to prosecute does is shift the obligation to prosecute to the other parties to Article III of the Geneva Conventions.

The shame of having to look to other countries to deal with "our" war criminals and bring us back into the community of civilized nations is one we would never fully recover from. Just as our elected officials are obligated to act, I believe we each have a duty to as citizens to fight to wake them up to their duty to do what the law, and their oaths, demand.

As I said in another post:

We must prosecute Bush, Cheney, and the other officials responsible for implementing and rubber stamping "the program." We must prosecute the employees who refused to say "no" when asked to commit outrages upon the persons in their custody. To do anything less renders the law meaningless and ensures that there will be officials in the future who believe they can commit any act, however abhorrent, with impunity, as long as some authority gives the "go ahead."

[cliffordu]

40. Yep. I'd have been so afraid of the fucking VP and HIS minions I'd have

tortured my mother.

Can you imagine having Cheney take a personal interest in your career????

[vaberella]

41. Yeah. n/t

[Jennicut]

52. Thats it in a nutshell. I don't blame the lower level people. I blame those in charge.

Did we not learn anything from Abu Ghraib?

[Shanti Mama]

85. Ahhhhhhhhh yup!

Pretty outrageous, eh? He should immediately prosecute all those who used torture, not have a strong case, lose and then not be able to prosecute the guys who really ran it all because he's blown all his credibility. In fact, I DEMAND IT!

Then he'll prosecute everyone who smokes pot...

[underpants]

90. too costly and meddlesome to spend time on the field operatives

they are going to pay if only by the complete banishment from power (but not jobs) and a marked period of our history and the happenings of that time

[Clio the Leo]

6. Excuse me while I........

.... KICK the crap out of this thread!!!!!

KICK! KICK! KICK!!!!!!!!!

[rateyes]

7. I want to hear that prosecutions are taking place. I haven't heard that yet.

In the meantime, I plan on calling every Congressperson, Senator, and the White House until I do hear it.

[bdamomma]

75. Let's see if Senators Leahy and Whitehouse are still planning

to bring this forward.

[slipslidingaway]

8. Also Feingold has it right on the FISA bill...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/16/nsa/index.html

"UPDATE III: Sen. Russ Feingold issued this statement today:

Since 2001, I have spent a lot of time in the Intelligence Committee, the Judiciary Committee, and on the floor of the Senate bringing attention to both the possible and actual effects of legislation that has dangerously expanded the power of the executive branch to spy on innocent Americans. Despite these efforts, Congress insisted on enacting several measures including the USA PATRIOT Act, the Protect America Act, and the FISA Amendments Act, embarking on a tragic retreat from the principles that had governed the sensitive area of government surveillance for the previous three decades. Congress must get to work fixing these laws that have eroded the privacy and civil liberties of law-abiding citizens. In addition, the administration should declassify certain aspects of how these authorities have been used so that the American people can better understand their scope and impact.

All of those bills Feingold lists that enabled these abuses were enacted with major Democratic support, despite the fact that opponents repeatedly made clear that exactly these abuses would happen."

[vaberella]

43. +1. n/t

[slipslidingaway]

77. Thanks, ACLU filed a lawsuit the same day the FISA bill passed...

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/35945res20080710.html

[midnight]

94. Let me just say how proud I am of our brave and smart Senator

Feingold. He gets it right over and over again. People need to listen to him....

[rufus dog]

9. that is just ignorant!

By doing this and letting the CIA interrogators get away scot free then those higher up the chain become the focal point.

[mmonk]

24. I haven't seen where anyone has been a focal point of anything.

[HughMoran]

34. Yes, it hasn't happened yet, so therefore it never will

I'm infuriated that I'm not getting my fix of instant gratification from Obama.

[MadMaddie]

39. The Jail guards did not get away scott free from the Nazi

camps in journey....

The Hague is and always will be there.....these memos have opened the gate for the Hague to start an international investigation.....

[Bluenorthwest]

57. No the guards did not get away

because we, the Allies, prosecuted them. For doing what Obama now says must be forgiven on the part of our own. WE put people in jail for doing these things, not just Nazis either. Japanese were excecuted for waterboarding.

[zeemike]

62. I hate to keep pointing this out to people but.

We won a military victory against the Germans and Japanese and so it was easy to purge and prosecute the responsible parties.
We won a political victory but that does not give Obama the power to purge the entire government of those responsible...unless we give him the power of Stalin...and I doubt that America is ready for that.

[peace13]

91. So America was attacked form the inside and there is no punishment for the attackers.

It is a simple impossibility. I see. I feel so much better now. In the meantime Rove and the like are out making money, talking down the Obama administration and undermining the security of our country. Why should those that watch this feel anything but outrage?

[zeemike]

101. I feel the same outrage as you do.

And want them in prison too.
But at the same time I know what is possible and what is not.
And unless we give Obama dictatorial power and back it up with guns and a willingness to fight and die we may not ever get all the criminals in jail in the next 4 years.
Those are just the realities that we must live with. Because what is important is the future not the past.

[stillcool]

130. We might see a little show..

like the Iran/Contra prosecutions, or the 9/11 Commission, or the Church hearings, or Watergate, or the Warren Commission and so on, and so on. It's how our government operates. They've had lots of practice.

[HamdenRice]

69. And former DOD secretary McNamara says the US committed war crimes as well

and that if we had lost, he would have expected himself to have ended up the the Hague.

Who wins matters, unfortunately.

[RaleighNCDUer]

104. Actually, they weren't. They were executed for murdering prisoners.

They got varying lengths in prison for waterboarding.

Don't exaggerate.

[jefferson_dem]

10. Feingold equals Boosh

Plus he hearts the nuremberg defense. Ugh... Et tu Russ?

[PeaceNikki]

132. That's one of the funniest things I've read on DU ever.

:rofl:

[cherish44]

11. But knee jerk reactions are so much more passionate than thinking about stuff

nt

[havocmom]

14. Roger that.

And when the knees jerk in this thread, it will make short work of deciding who to put on ignore, won't it? :thumbsup:

[Pacifist Patriot]

51. I've done more of that in the past month than I ever did in the primaries.

[KaryninMiami]

12. Thanks for posting this and thank goodness for Russ.

I'm always impressed by him and tonight is no exception.

[Uzybone]

13. Thanks Russ

[angee_is_mad]

15. Kick

big kick

[HopeOverFear]

17. awww now see, now you've just ruined it

[slipslidingaway]

18. Ashcroft Suggests CIA Started Torturing, Then Sought Legal Cover

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5473057&mesg_id=5473057

[Aloha Spirit]

31. wow

I totally missed that
Wonder how long it takes for the media to bring that up...

[slipslidingaway]

78. Yes, thanks to Solly Mack for her thread n/t

[jeanpalmer]

38. Good point

and even Feingold noted that "it is not his administration's intention to prosecute those who acted reasonably and relied in good faith upon legal advice." That's a big qualifier. It appears that there's a requirement of reasonableness with respect to the torture (wow, isn't that a weird concept to announce). So apparently those who went crazy and became sadistic were not "reasonable" and therefore would be subject to prosecution. Also, the torurers had to rely on the advice in good faith. If they suspected the advice was illegal or they knew what they were being asked to do was illegal or immoral, then they were not acting in good faith perhaps.

So even under the standards announced, there is room for prosecution. What I don't see is any intestinal fortitude in anyone to do so. It's easier to sweep it under the carpet, like they did with W's WMD lies and the spying scandal. And I think that's what they're doing.

[vaberella]

44. I don't agree. I think you've underestimated the President's method.

I think there are a lot of Senators Repub and Dem (especially from public pressure)after reading the released papers that will start making moves. They'll be too horrified by what they read not to. Which allows the President to do his duty while other people in power do theirs. This is also the reason why he released them so that the public is aware of it and puts political pressure.

I think people really underestimate the president...through this it would actually force the hand of prosecution. While KO said the door narrowed a bit, that's not the case. The door was blown off it's hinges and opened for direct action.

[jeanpalmer]

48. I hope so

He's definitely causing a lot of discussion. I'll be curious to see how long the outrage lasts. I hope you're right; but based on what I've seen of Congress, I don't have much confidence they'll do anything. I'll believe it when I see it. I'm still waiting for a hearing into the false WMD claims.

[slipslidingaway]

83. Yes there is room, but President Obama's statement...

makes one wonder one if there is the will, as you stated.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=441187&mesg_id=441187


"But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America’s ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future."


http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1743-tortured-logic-obama-writes-off-old-crimes-while-promoting-new-outrages.html


"...The more one considers Obama's remarks, the more offensive they become, and the more flagrantly they insult the intelligence. For the very memos that he has released give the lie to his own statement. Obama says it would be wrong to prosecute CIA underlings for carrying out actions that they were told were legal. Leaving aside the fact that apparently none of these great, courageous, self-sacrificing, vigilant defenders of our "core values" (as Obama lauds them) considered these tortures to be inherently immoral, but simply wanted to cover their ass legally before they wall-slammed the hell out of somebody or poured water down their throats until they began to choke and drown -- the fact is, they were told quite specifically by Bush's White House shysters that there was no guarantee that their actions would be considered legal by a court.

Glenn Greenwald points out the "smoking gun" memo that destroys Obama's entire defense -- for it is a defense -- of the CIA tortures: A signed statement by Steven Bradbury, one of the key paper-pushers in the torture regimen. Bradbury told the front-line torturers:


Given the paucity of relevant precedent and the subjective nature of the inquiry, however, we cannot predict with confidence that a court would agree with this conclusion ."

[ima_sinnic]

yeah, & that could be wishful thinking. Because I heard him say we have to "look forward,"

and "this is a time for reflection, not retribution"--as though JUSTICE and the RULE OF LAW don't have anything to do with anything. As though anybody was even thinking about "retribution"--that isn't even an issue, but I guess it makes a clever sound bite. Whatever. He's not going to start prosecuting the elite, believe me, though it is his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. Since he's engaging in lawbreaking himself, wiretapping the citizens without warrants and denying the kidnapped prisoners at Guantanamo habeas corpus, why should he?

[katandmoon]

19. Blah blah blah. So what DOES it mean? Does it mean Obama WILL prosecute criminal behavior?

If so, let him say so upfront, and start DOING it, instead of this weasely "we must move forward" bullshit.

[ima_sinnic]

20. +1

:thumbsup:

[vaberella]

45. Actually if you took a step back and paid attention than mouthing off...

You'd probably see what this is for. There is enough room here for the people to put unspeakable amount of pressure on their congressmen and Senators, in particular those two to take actions against the Bush admin. Someone just posted in a post above yours that some CIA officials probably acted out first and then sought legal protection----if that's the case those guys go through prosecution. Those who just followed orders post the incident don't. Which means there are plenty of prosecutions to go around and he gave plenty of amo with this release. If you can't see that then your posts aren't even worth recognizing because all you care about is drama over reason.

[katandmoon]

66. Not buying it. Obama is president. It's up to him to LEAD. Not twiddle his thumbs until public

pressure upon the House and the Senate FORCES him to act. Unless you really think that's how it's supposed to work? That Obama doesn't give orders to ensure his administration enforces the law, regardless of the political fallout, but only waits until it's become politically safe for him to do so?

Because that's an argument I keep reading here, and I have to wonder how successfully that argument would fly if, say, Bush were still president.

I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee. Just how many more "let's move on" statements do you need to hear Obama make to make it very clear to you that he has NO INTENTION of prosecuting ANYBODY for torture, from Bush on down to the lowliest CIA peon, regardless of how much DOJ cover they were given and when they were given it?

[peace13]

97. I agree.

The odd part is that Obama's actions lead me to believe that he really does not care about the people who worked for him and believed that he would support the Constitution and the rule of law. It is odd and exhausting. His concern with keeping his 'campaign site' operational 24/7 365 also has me wondering. Time will tell.

[RaleighNCDUer]

107. WE DON'T NEED A FUCKING LEADER!!!!!!!

It was the fascistic need for a 'leader' that got us into this mess in the first place. Obama is just getting the government out of the way to all justice to rise up.

You think if he were to 'lead' in the attacks it would be presented to the public as anything but partisan attacks on the Republicans and on his predecessor in particular? Can you think of ANY way better guaranteed to make him a one-term president?

The impetus HAS to come from congress. And it HAS to come from a congress that was largely complicit in the very crimes they need to prosecute. You think this is EASY?

I swear to god, half the people yammering that Obama needs to prosecute NOW are trolls who desperately hope he will do so.

[stlsaxman]

124. Bingo! stlsaxman hi5's RaleighNCDUer!

[RaleighNCDUer]

106. Obama is not the AG. He will NEVER prosecute anyone. It is not in

his purview.

Any prosecution have to come from Justice - which is still stuffed to the gills with Bush partisans. Even if Holder opened prosecutions immediately, how much evidence would go missing because Justice employees shredded it to protect their heroes?

Doing this allows for cases to be built from the ground up - from the interrogators themselves, now given limited immunity (not if they caused severe harm or killed prisoners, which are outside the limits of the Justice memos) to allow prosecution of the higher ups, even to the top most persons in the Bush administration who signed off on this.

[stlsaxman]

125. Bingo x2!! stlsaxman hi5's RaleighNCDUer twice!!

that is absolutely correct- "prosecution" ain't his friggin' job. that's why we have separation of powers and why Congress holds hearings.

[NoSheep]

117. Better to keep them guessing, I say. Until it's all sewn up.

Think about it...for your own sake. We should continue to raise hell so he and others will have our support when the time comes. But I think we should listen carefully to these words and know for certain the case is being prepared to go after those who really matter. My opinion.

[chill_wind]

21. The "good faith" argument is perhaps a rather fragile one, at best.

WAPO 2006

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5473047#top

We'll see where it leads, in time. One step at a time. Today was a very important one.

K & R for President Obama's/Eric Holder's decision on the memos and for Senator Feingold's ongoing commitment to this and many vital issues.

[RaleighNCDUer]

108. And they knew it when they said it -

Considering the last line (as posted above) of one of the relevant memos"

"Given the paucity of relevant precedent and the subjective nature of the inquiry, however, we cannot predict with confidence that a court would agree with this conclusion ."

That seems to me to open the door for prosecution of just about ANYONE in the process. Immunity will be granted on an individual basis, depending on the severity of their crimes and their willingness to enhance the prosecution of their superiors.

[chill_wind]

121. Good points! n/t

[GeorgeGist]

23. The Nuremburg Defense was rejected as nonsense.

Apparently, Feingold doesn't.

[eyesroll]

25. Except that this wasn't "I was just following orders."

This was "I was told it was legal from the very people whose job it is to enforce these things."

That has been a defense in criminal law for decades--"mistake of law." You're not allowed to claim ignorance of the law as a defense to a crime, but if someone in the government whose job it is to get the law right tells you something it's OK, and you acted accordingly, you cannot be held liable for it later.

[MarjorieG]

27. Important distinction.

[high density]

56. This is a very, very difficult concept for the outragers to grasp NM

[Bluenorthwest]

63. Except that the folks who said 'just following orders'

were also following orders from 'the very people whose job it is to enforce these things'. The German Government said their actions were legal, and under German law at the time, they were. So those prosecuted in WW2 were also following legal opinion from those whose job is to get the law right.

[eyesroll]

99. Under *US* law, the people in the field shouldn''t be found guilty.

And they would be tried under US law. It's unethical (meaning, could result in sanctions or disbarment) for a prosecutor to prosecute something he or she knows can't or shouldn't result in a conviction.

International law may well be different...but the United States Justice Department would be prosecuting American citizens who did something that the United States Justice Department said was OK. Aside from the facial absurdity of that, the Justice Department is limited to American law.

/cue the chorus of "Well, drag them to The Hague and let them hang there"

[RaleighNCDUer]

110. Wrong. The "just following orders" defense was used by Nazis who

NEVER questioned their orders. This refers to those who asked Justice about the legality of their orders, and were told "those are legal orders". In our military you have a duty to refuse illegal orders, but you have a commensurate responsibility to follow legal orders. Such a duty to refuse did NOT exist in the German army, it might be noted, and the entire military culture made questioning orders something of an oxymoron - you didn't obey LEGAL orders, you obeyed ALL orders. I would be astonished if a single camp guard in the entire third reich ever asked a lawyer if what he was doing was legal. They had basically three choices - obey, get shot, or desert. Legality of what they were doing was NOT a factor.

A truly silly argument.

[RaleighNCDUer]

109. Exactly. nt

[depakid]

26. One would like to believe that interpretation

I suppose we'll find out down the line whether it's an accurate assessment or not.

Based on what's transpired thus far- and on the history of such things in the US, it's difficult not to remain skeptical.

[kster]

28. Most of the government is worried about being held responsible for torture but,

"The president has stated that it is not his administration's intention to prosecute those who acted reasonably and relied in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice."

Sounds like Obama is letting Republican and Democratic politicians off the hook and focusing on the guilty people.

"The president has stated that it is not his administration's intention to prosecute those who acted reasonably and relied in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice."

Obama is after people in the Justice department who manipulated the wording that would convince people that it was OK to torture. He is not after the people, "who acted reasonably and relied in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice", Obama is after a select few.

The words excuse most politicians and most military personnel from prosecution.

Thats what I'm reading in to this.

K&R

[Kaleva]

29. Similiar to the Finnish War Responsibility Trials

held after WWII. Only the top civilians were charged and convicted of waging a war of aggression, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity. Lower level civilians and members of the military were exempt from prosecution.

[w4rma]

30. Yup. Exactly. I'm fine with this. (nt)

[Mira]

33. I'm counting on this to be exactly so. I do not want to suffer disappointment of such magnitude.

[Undercurrent]

35. A sane adult!

Thank you, Senator.

[grantcart]

37. well if we actually have to listen to the guy your going to take all the fun out of it.

[vaberella]

46. I haven't seen you in ages GC..glad to see you posting. I'd love to see a thread of your views on

this. n/t

[grantcart]

114. Nice to see you again.

I think we all know the Presidents' mind and committment on these issues.

He is picking his fights and working strategically.

That he has addressed so many issues in 88 days is really quite stunning when you think where we were 3 months ago.

On some issues he is taking big strides, like on nuclear disarmament. On other issues he is taking smaller steps. Those smaller steps do not mean that he will not take larger steps later on.


For those that are deeply critical of the President I would say that simply because you don't understand the President's strategy doesn't mean that he doesn't have one.


I have been busy working (March was a disaster for me work wise), but with your encouragement I will offer a modest thread later on the general issue of Obama, his timing and his strategy. I find Fredrick Douglass' judgement on Lincoln to be a timely comparison. Douglas was a frequent critic of what he saw as Lincoln's timid moves. Always incremental and always short of what was needed. On issue after issue Douglas found Lincoln wanting; equal pay for Black soldiers, commissioning Black officers, ordering retaliatory executions if the Confederate Army executed Black POWs, and so on.

At the time Douglass lambasted Lincoln as "the tardy, hesitating and vacillating policy of the President of the United States".

When they met Lincoln to issue with the accusation of vacillation "I think it cannot be shown that when I have once taken a position, I have ever retreated from it."

Ultimately Douglass reassessed his criticism of Lincoln and came to this conclusion

"The President is a most remarkable man. I am satisfied now that he is doing all that circumstances will permit him to do"

The President operates in a system of divided power. President Obama needs to bring along two deliberative bodies with all kinds of conflicting ideological and regional tensions. He has to contend with an antagonistic media that is waiting to expose his flaws. He must engage a country whose entire population is worried about its next paycheck. Obama's positions are always ahead and like Lincoln he never vacilates. What can this man do in 8 years and not 88 days?

For me I am content with Mr. Douglass' words;

"I am satisfied now that he is doing all that circumstances will permit him to do".

[Political Heretic]

42. Feingold has been disappointed before with his hopes for Obama.

I hope he's right this time.

[FrenchieCat]

47. Like about what?

Russ Feingold doesn't mistake President Obama for President Kucinich....only here on DU do folks do that.

[seaglass]

50. Obama's flip flop on FISA. n/t

[PeaceNikki]

64. Indeed. Russ is not afraid to criticize Obama when he disagrees. Also see his statement on

Obama DOJ brief in Jewel.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/09/tpm/index1.html

[biopowertoday]

58. The actual one's who did the job are free--other's still on the hook...............

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090417/ap_on_go_pr_wh/torture_memos;_ylt=Aq7egpfpNnGpqt5YrWz7rDes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJlZHBsdDFsBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwNDE3L3RvcnR1cmVfbWVtb3MEY3BvcwMzBHBvcwM5BHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA29iYW1hd29udGNoYQ--

.............. By JENNIFER LOVEN and DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writers Jennifer Loven And Devlin Barrett, Associated Press Writers – 43 mins ago

WASHINGTON – In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, CIA operatives were allowed to shackle, strip and waterboard terror suspects. Now, President Barack Obama has assured these operatives that they will not be prosecuted for their rough interrogation tactics.

At the same time, Obama's attorney general offered the operatives legal help if anyone else takes them to court over the harsh interrogation methods that were approved by the Bush administration.

The offer of presidential support, however, did not extend to those outside the CIA who approved the so-called enhanced interrogation methods or any CIA officers who may have gone beyond what was allowed in four legal memos written in 2002 and 2005 that the Obama administration released Thursday.

[Jackpine Radical]

72. This is the reverse of the usual pattern, in which the big fish go free

and the small fry take the rap.

Think Lynndie England and Rumsfeld, etc.

Maybe they need the small fry to testify about their orders from the big guys.

I don't mind seeing the "mechanics" go free as long as the "engineers" get nailed.

I would, however, carefully evaluate those "mechanics" to see if I'd want them doing anything for me in the future.

[MasonJar]

60. Now Senator Feingold needs to pressure the Dems and the Executive

Branch to investigate and prosecute those found guilty...and so should we, the citizens. I am tired of excuses. Would you have treated anyone this way? No job is worth the mental anguish I'd live with the rest of my life. The CIA operatives should have resigned as should anyone else in the Bushista with a conscience.

[4dsc]

61. This is why I contribute to the Feingold campaign..

And I'm from Iowa.. Its too bad my own Senator's couldn't stand up to the Bush administration and now the Obama camp on this issue..

[L. Coyote]

70. Ax falls: "Bush administration's lawyers and top officials were complicit in torture"

This is just beginning. We are about to hear a crescendo that will compete with felling a forest.

Lots and lots of axes, maybe a guillotine, a noose, ...

[paparush]

71. You Know Cheney's Team of Lawyers (tm) is poring over that statement with a fine toothed comb.

[Phx_Dem]

74. FInally, someone who actually listens, which is pretty easy to do

when your head isn't up your ass searching for any little thing to criticize Obama about.

Nice job, Russ.

[jwirr]

81. In the Nuremberg Trials it was the top guys not the foot soldiers

who were tried. So far we have tried the foot soldiers such and the English woman.

[grahamhgreen]

82. I am sick of "carefully worded" spin, TORTURE IS ILLEGAL, therefore, one Must prosecute

[democrank]

86. Prosecute

all of them.

[alfredo]

89. Start making calls, write letters to your representatives, and LTTE's.

[peace13]

95. That will work....not.

Really, we have gone over the falls here. How much time has been wasted on just what you suggest. I myself have a journal of all of the times that I have called representatives and written in response to actions our reps were or were not taking. I have organized marches ..well in fact last night we had Karl Rove in town speaking at the university so we gathered the signs, called the local paper to make sure that there was coverage and off we went. The articles this morning were disgusting. It seems that Karl is an honored guest in the community. Two words about the protesters and the rest of the press was aglow about Karl.

Who has time to work their butts off to get the president elected and then still have to babysit the administration to make sure that the right thing is done. Speaking as a person who has been actively involved for many years, as of today I sit shaking my head about what could possibly be done to get our Constitution back and make sure that what * did to our country can never happen again. For the life of me I can not think of a one ( I am talking peaceful and law abiding). I know that 500,000 on the Mall will not do it because I have been there, done that and seen that the media will not let that message be heard. Peace, Kim

[alfredo]

105. A good general picks the time and place to fight. I think he wants to get

major parts of his agenda out of the way first because once the hearings and subpoenas start being passed out, the GOP will bring government to a halt.

[peace13]

115. I do hope that you are correct.

I will think good thoughts. Peace, Kim

[alfredo]

118. I hope so too. Spain seemed to make me think that we will be acting against

them, so they decided to back off to see what we do.


Anyway, we need to put pressure on them.

[JDPriestly]

88. I hope Senator Feingold is right.

But when I watched the interview of Armitage on Al Jazeera yesterday, I lost hope. Judging form Armitage's body language, I think a deal has been made. I couldn't guess what the terms of the bargain were, but some kind of "arrangement" has been reached, either formally or informally, possibly even tacitly or through the nod of a head or the shaking of a hand, but I suspect strongly that some kind of "understanding" has been reached. And I also suspect strongly that Cheney has broken his end of the deal and is now being pressured to comply or else . . . .

This is just my theory based on my understanding of the facts, logic and my experience. I have no personal knowledge of a deal.

[brindis_desala]

92. The complainers on DU again miss the point.

Obama cannot reform a secretive government that has been corrupted for over 30 years unless the public DEMANDS it. He has told the American public what was done in our name... our response let's whine about not immediately prosecuting the miscreants in court... the same court mind you that also approved Bush's legal gyrations. see--Rasul, et al., v. Myers, et al. (Circuit docket 06-5209) rejecting the torture and abuse claims, and National Institute of Military Justice v. Department of Defense (06-5242)

"In what appears to be the first federal appeals court decision on the legality of harsh interrogation techniques used by U.S. agents on terrorism suspects, the Circuit Court ruled that torture and abuse that was used while individuals were in detention in a military prison as part of interrogations to gather intelligence or information were “the type of conduct the defendants were employed to engage in….The alleged tortious conduct was incidental to the defendants’ legitimate employment duties” — that is, running a military prison and conducting interrogations there.

“It was foreseeable that conduct that would ordinarily be indisputably ’seriously criminal’ would be implemented by military officials responsible for detaining and interrogating suspected enemy combatants,” Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote in the Court’s main opinion, joined in by Circuit Judge A. Raymond Randolph and in most parts as well as the result by Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown." From jan 11, 2008-http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/detainees-barred-from-challenging-torture-abuse/

[wiggs]

98. I hope for prosecutions based on detainee abuse. I also hope that

everyone (nation) remembers that there is no shortage of reasons to prosecute many in the Bush administration....all kinds of reasons, beginning with lying to congress (Iraq and Medicare), spying, torture, falsifying science reports to congress, politicization of justice department, and on and on. I would like to think that the administration knows which it will pursue and which are harder cases to convict. Even the torture issue has multiple aspects and multiple transgressions...complex. It's not black and white.

Over the last 8 years dems have played along with the gop and administration in letting very complex issues get boiled down to one gray area that everyone argues about and then forgets as unresolvable. I hope this administration continues to chew gum and walk at the same time....will expose the previous administration and will pursue some practical aspect of torture prosecutions...and will also continue to pursue justice in other policy areas too.

I doubt that crimes will be ignored...it's not in his nature to not give SOMETHING to both sides of an issue.

[Mme. Defarge]

111. Big K&R!

This made my day. Thanks.

[EFerrari]

112. I get it and it's not true in addition to being morally bankrupt. n/t

[NoSheep]

116. Thank you so much for this post! Finally. Finally...maybe the naysayers will

calm down.

[ejbr]

119. I trust Feingold on this one and will take a chill pill

:smoke:


ahhhh chilled.

[edc]

120. There is no rationale nor any excuse.

Bill of Rights. Article VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article IV, paragraph 2 Constitution of the United States.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Origin Uncertain:

"Let justice be done though the heavens fall." (Fiat justitia ruat caelum)

:patriot:

[santamargarita]

123. So in Nuremberg they should have just gone after Hitler?

Why in the hell doesn't he just say what he means.

[burning rain]

128. No-one who condoned or used torture acted in good faith.

Yoo, Office of Legal Council were compliant torture-enablers. They can't provide even a fig leaf.

[derby378]

131. I sure do hope Feingold is right

Feingold is one of the heroes of the Democratic Party, and the first potential candidate I supported in the 2008 race.