[Update] CIA Acknowledges it has 7000+ Documents Related to Torture and Rendition

Just a quickie, because this seems like news to me. [UPDATED below--with thanks to Magnifico]

From the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR):

"For the first time, the CIA has acknowledged that extensive records exist relating to its use of enforced disappearances and secret prisons," said Curt Goering, AIUSA senior deputy executive director. "Given what we already know about documents written by Bush administration officials trying to justify torture and other human rights crimes, one does not need a fertile imagination to conclude that  the real reason for refusing to disclose these documents has more to do with avoiding disclosure of criminal activity than national security."

The revelation came in response to "lawsuit against the Department of Defense, Department of Justice, Department of State, Department of Homeland Security and the Central Intelligence Agency under the Freedom of Information Act" filed last June by CCR, Amnesty International USA (AIUSA) and Washington Square Legal Services for documents "pertaining to secret detention and extraordinary rendition of individuals in the so-called 'War on Terror.'"

In responding to the order, the CIA has admitted that it has the documents, but refuses to turn them over. Previously, they had sidestepped Congressional requests for such documents by "responding with form letters or referring to briefings."

Surprise, surprise, one of the reasons for the refusal? A kind of proxy executive privilege, although they do not use the phrase, and claims of lawyer-client privilege:

Among other assertions, the CIA claimed that it did not have to release the documents because many consist of correspondence with the White House or top Bush administration officials, or because they are between parties seeking legal advice on the programs, including guidance on the legality of certain interrogation procedures.  The CIA confirmed that it requested—and received—legal advice from attorneys at the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel concerning these procedures.

Does this mean that there exist documents that prove that BushCo is directly responsible for human rights violations? Now that the CIA has admitted it has these documents, human rights groups are renewing their calls for their release and so should we. And the Congress. The CIA cannot claim FOIA exemptions to hide illegal acts.

[UPDATE:] h/t Magnifico. WaPo has an article: CIA Foresaw Interrogation Issues,
Agency Considered Investigations 'Virtually Inevitable':

The CIA said it had identified more than 7,000 pages of classified memos, e-mails and other records relating to its secret prison and interrogation program, but maintained that the materials cannot be released because they relate to, in part, communications between CIA and Justice Department attorneys or discussions with the White House.

Nineteen of those documents were withheld from disclosure specifically because the Bush administration decided they are covered by a "presidential communications privilege," according to the filings, made in federal court in Manhattan. Some were "authored or solicited and received by the President's senior advisors in connection with a decision, or potential decision, to be made by the president."

As Magnifico says:

those nineteen documents are the smoking howitzer. Impeach.

What can we do:

• Educate ourselves and others. CCR has a fantastic website with information summarized, and PDFs of documents related to their ongoing cases.
• Pressure Congresscritters to demand the release of these CIA documents. Oh, yeah, and you might want to suggest impeachment as well.
• Donate to the amazing groups that do this work: CCR and AIUSA

•  Outrage Bucket

  (formerly known as "Tip Jar")

  by srkp23 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:02:08 PM PDT

  •  I think you may need multiple buckets

    to contain all of the outrage.

    Barrels even.

    by tecampbell on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:14:27 PM PDT

    •  If the CIA is acknowledging it has 7,000+

      documents, can you imagine how many are deeply buried or have been destroyed? I'd never believe they'd ever come clean in a million years.

      by rontun on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:20:57 PM PDT

      •  Unless the executive branch changes hands:

        hint, hint,

        HINT!

        by tecampbell on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:23:00 PM PDT

        •  The CIA is no friend of the Bush administration.

          During the Bush reign the cowardly Tenet was forced to fall on his sword, CIA analysts were ignored and belittled, a CIA agent was betrayed in a manner undoubtedly leading to exposure of ongoing covert operations, the hugely incompetent political hack Porter Goss was foisted in as Director to conduct a political purge of the agency, and the CIA Director was stripped of its seat at the table of the NSC.

          I would not doubt that there is a treasure-trove of evidence that has been amassed regarding the crimes of the Bush administration. Whether we will see it or not will depend on the agenda of the next President and the next Director that serves under him.

          by lightfoot on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:12:19 AM PDT

          •  Porter Goss tenure

            That's where I'm looking. Granted the CIA career people have no fondness for the rough handling they've gotten from bushco - same can be said for the military, imo, and the DoJ. But the heads of the agency are another matter entirely, Goss in particular. He seemed like a strange choice at the time, but in retrospect... just another loyal dog. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a point to demanding he be hauled in front of congress to 'splain himself? But I won't bother with such nonsense.

            by kamarvt on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:08:15 AM PDT

            •  A good place to start is....

                 to examine the reasons surrounding his sudden departure on May 5th, 2006. Some suggest it dealt with Abramoff. Some looked at the Washington parties with hookers and gambling that he attended a couple of times. I think it had more to do with the drugs. The CIA plane that went down in Mexico's Yucatan area with 5.5 tons of cocaine aboard is my bet. The unsavory trail that this crash and the one in last September, 2007 all point to involvement of the CIA in running drugs for Bush's friends in Colombia and the dregs he can steal from the Taliban in Afghanistan. Flight records of the DC-9 that went down in April, 2006 less than two weeks before Goss resigned show it had been used on renditions and returned from Afghanistan to Cuba with stops often in Ireland where much of the drugs from Afghanistan originate for Western Eurpoe.  

              by NC Dem on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:03:06 AM PDT

            •  Heckuva Job, Porter! n/t

              by lightfoot on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:11:36 AM PDT

    •  Several box cars, I think. n/t

      by phrogge prince on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:50:07 AM PDT

  •  Good diary. I saw this earlier...

    Tipped & Rec'd.

    by markthshark on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:41:30 AM PDT

    •  I hope it will spend some time on the rec list

      Right now it's the only non-primary diary up there.  It would be nice to diversify our portfolio, especially when it's a topic as important as this one.

      by lineatus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:42:04 AM PDT

  •  Glad to see this on the Rec List.

    Good eagle eye, 23!

    The contents of your diary, however, horrify me. I simply do not understand what kind of people enable torture, or willfully help cover it up. As long as it's not them, I suppose....

    by kath25 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:15:09 AM PDT

•  Photos of tortures too?

  How sick is that...the people at Abu Ghraib were said to be lower ranks when they were doing sick things to often innocent Iraqis..but how lowly are those who took pictures of people having who knows what done to them..sick sick sick.

  I have this awful niggling feeling sometimes that like the Nazis someone was getting their jollies.

  by ohcanada on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:06:06 PM PDT

  •  Sadistic motherf- - -kers!

    And truth be known, that sadism can be connected to the highest level of government.  The fact that the Bush administration approved this crap is evidence of its demented exhilaration.

    by rontun on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:24:20 PM PDT

  •  of course

    we're still waiting for the really bad stuff (IIRC, Hersh said that it started at rape) that was allegedly being held pending the completion of the whitewash official investigation.

    by alizard on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:16:52 AM PDT

  •  and we haven't even seen the worst pictures n/t

    by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:32:14 AM PDT

•  IM

  PEACH.

  and subpoena the docs as evidence.

  by wu ming on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:06:26 PM PDT

  •  Absolutely.

    At this point I am almost as outraged at Congressional Dems as I am at BushCo.

    by srkp23 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:11:23 PM PDT

    •  almost?

      get real.  they are complicit.  And when the war crime charges come down... I'm siding with those who have been violated.  Yes.  Take notice congress.  Either you fix it, or you are part of the problem.

      by Compound F on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:29:03 PM PDT

      •  Oh. I know they're complicit

        but I'm not sure I agree that the enablers are as criminal as the creators.

        That said, I find it incredible that people are so invested in the Dem prez candidates, when neither of them think that BushCo has committed crimes or impeachable offenses.

        by srkp23 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:31:25 PM PDT

        •  I believe strongly....

          that it will someday be revealed that at least some of the most senior officials in the bush administration actually watched torture sessions or videos of them.

          There is something about the process which draws them to it.  It is all based on a blind, sweeping and ideological hatred.  Having authorized it because of that hatred, I truly believe that some felt compelled to watch it.  We can all speculate as to who among them, took part in that process.

          by dweb8231 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:36:03 PM PDT

          •  Goldsmith's book 'The Terror Presidency'

            has a whole section about his torture tour of Gitmo, seeing Hamdin, and Padilla, before he was hired at OLC.  Remember that Goldsmith had previously worked with Haynes at the Pentagon on torture, but, up to his torture tour, I don't think he quite got that, in his own words 'this is the reason we have habeas corpus'.  The penny dropped then, but it took him 9 months at OLC, and bashing heads with Addington for him to extricate himself from the torture mob.

            There aren't particular descriptions of actual torture, but he wrote enough about the end result that one knows that even a dyed-in-the-wool-winger who had previously advocated torture was revolted by what he saw.

            Apparently there were more torture tours for the 'brass' than just this one tour.

            by sailmaker on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:11:35 PM PDT

            •  This really goes beyond impeachment. It demands

              that a war crimes tribunal be formed to investigate and prosecute these crimes.

              by rontun on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:25:59 PM PDT

          •  Hell, certain of our Congressthugs

            have watched the videos.  Once they could get their, umm, excitement under control, a few of them even shed a few publicized croc tears over them.

            And then made sure that everything remained "business as usual."

            by corvo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:25:18 AM PDT

        •  IIRC, Obama

          said there would be investigations after he takes office. Into what? We'll find out.

          by alizard on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:18:36 AM PDT

          •  This is a KEY point.

            Obviously, the complicit (whether criminally so, I don't know) Congress is not going to take action against the war criminals running war crimes from our White House.  Baring disaster (essentially, death) Obama is going to become the 44th President of the United States.  The Congress will be different, though how changed vis-a-vis the Bush Administration war crimes will remain to be seen.  We will have a new Attorney General.  And Obama will be in a position to begin the process of investigating (and revealing to America) the war crimes ordered by the war criminals who held office in our White House.

            What will he do?

            That's the millions of gallons of human blood question.  What will he do?

            Here's an informed writer who thinks the answer is not much (sad and hard to read, but a great resource).

            Here is Obama in 2007 or 2008 (several years after it was apparent that the US had chosen the war crimes path of aggressive war, and publicly stated its intent to go over to "the dark side" -- that is, to willfully break laws, and to torture without limit):

            "I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings. And I've often said, I do not think that would be something that would be fruitful to pursue. I think impeachment should be reserved for exceptional circumstances."

            When the war crimes of aggressive war (codified at Nuremberg as a legal tool to use in the prosecution of Nazis) and torture fail to be considered "exceptional circumstances" by a Constitutional scholar and candidate for President, we are well outside the rule of law.  

            by Yellow Canary on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:11:26 AM PDT

            •  Sad part is

              We're not going to get serious investigations from McCain and certainly not from Clinton II. I think with Obama we have a chance, and I think (although I don't entirely agree with it) that he's keeping his mouth shut about what we'll be doing to the war criminals until after he gets into office. That way the BushCo cronies and the MSM can't echo chamber his statements and whip up a frenzy of ignorant opposition to him.

              by jabbausaf on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:27:21 AM PDT

              •  Think he won't pardon the entire government?

                I certainly expect it on his last day.  Why wouldn't he?

                by aseth on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:43:16 AM PDT

                •  can't pardon what hasn't been charged yet

                  part of GWB's folly is that all of this will hit the fan after he is powerless to stop it.

                  by OWCH on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:46:42 AM PDT

              •  Brings to mind the selection of popes

                Tin foil hat territory, but weren't there rumors that the reason Pope John Paul had such a short life after being named pope was because he got into office, found out nasty things and was going to expose the church and they silenced him and put in someone who wouldn't reveal that information?  

                What about Obama?  At this point, I believe he'll be elected President, but will he last in office if he pushes too hard at these criminals, especially those exceptionally skilled in the deadly arts?  Killing him might be too blatant (though they could find a Lee Harvey Oswald and later a Jack Ruby).  I'm hoping for Barack Obama to be able to survive and accomplish all that we believe he can do - just not sure he'll be able to if he looks under too many rocks.

                If this goes too far against the site rules, I apologize in advance.  

                by ColoTim on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:44:37 AM PDT

                •  If he's too open about what he'll do

                  He'll never live to inauguration.

                  by jabbausaf on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:39:17 AM PDT

              •  I have stated how much I hope this ...

                ... is so.

                by Yellow Canary on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:47:48 AM PDT

  •  SCUM

    BAGS.

    From the CCR website:

    In its legal filings, the CIA acknowledged that this program “will continue.”  Some prisoners have been transferred to prisons in other countries for proxy detention where they face the risk of torture and where they continue to be held secretly, without charge or trial.

    by Mother Mags on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:11:40 PM PDT

    •  Wow.

      Thanks for finding that, MM.

      by LithiumCola on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:19:57 PM PDT

    •  So our government's offical policy is

      The beatings will continue until morale improves.  Just great, guys. We deal with people who are pissed off at us for invading their countries and messing with their stuff by kidnapping them and torturing them.  It is a stroke of brilliance, to combat terrorism by giving them more recruits.  

      by pgm 01 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:18:13 PM PDT

      •  This has been the Bush strategy all along.

        The "war" on "terror" has been asymmetric all along: we are really effing big and really effing rich (we can spend a trillion dollars blowing shit up and melting children, and not really care); they are small, relatively poor, and way way way behind in the science of mass murder.  Pretty much the only effective weapon they have is the suicide bomber.  9/11 would not have happened without this most powerful of asymmetric warfare weapons.  And every day since then, Bush, Cheney, formerly Rumsfeld, and the entire NeoConMen cabal have done everything possible to stock the enemy with the maximum number of suicide bombers.

        The goal is to prolong war;  the strategy is to prolong it by creating more terrorists and terrorist attacks.

        They have achieved that goal.  It is measured and documented.

        Why?  Why work to create problems rather than solve them?

        Money -- but only partially.  The holy grail of NeoConMen is to use the United States' one super-great military advantage:  nuclear bombs.  And the only way to do that is to up the ante.  And if your opponent is broke, and you want the game to go on until you can roll out your Fat Man, you give him money, chips, drinks -- in war, you arm your enemy.

        And so Bush does.  He has no intention of culling the enemy and marching them off to death (that's so Germanic, and requires, infamously, work):  Bush is a short-cut kind of guy:  he intends to liquify them from the air, by the hectare.  

        by Yellow Canary on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:31:28 AM PDT

•  I am absolutely disgusted

  by every aspect of this. 7,000 documents says to me more rendition victims than we knew of previously. many more, and the same for torture victims.

  thank you, skrpy, for bringing this important news to us.

  by Avila on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:07:32 PM PDT

  •  It is repulsive

    And meanwhile we're in the midsts of a presidential election and everyone's waxing on about democracy. What democracy? We have a criminal executive branch and an enabling congress.

    by srkp23 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:13:30 PM PDT

  •  thanks, Avila

    ...for the redirect diary...

    by keirdubois on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:00:16 PM PDT

    •  thank you

      very much for reading that, and reading this.

      by Avila on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:02:35 PM PDT

      •  Yes, Avila,

        thank you. I had no idea until someone pointed it out to me.
        **********

        We are torturing people and keeping records. Some democracy.

        by srkp23 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:17:38 PM PDT

        •  the ultimate dumbing down of our nation

          there is absolutely no justification for this . . . but then, they don't bother trying to justify it.

          you don't have to be a CSI to know that if you're determined to do something really, really bad, wear gloves, use public phone, use cash, don't leave a 7,000 piece paper trail. puh-leeeze.

          what's with the trophies and souvenirs? this speaks to how empowered they feel and that would scare me if it didn't make me so furious.

          by Avila on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:27:19 PM PDT

          •  They already know that nothing will happen

            you don't have to be a CSI to know that if you're determined to do something really, really bad, wear gloves, use public phone, use cash, don't leave a 7,000 piece paper trail. puh-leeeze.

            what's with the trophies and souvenirs? this speaks to how empowered they feel and that would scare me if it didn't make me so furious.

            What will happen? They'll get a sternly worded letter?  There are so many Democrats completely complicit in this that there is no way there will be any accountability for any member of this administration for absolute war crimes.

            The only hope is to stop the policies.  Those who have enacted them, voted for them, supported them, or have otherwise been complicit in absolute certain war crimes will never be held to account.  There are too many people on both sides who have been so.   Nobody will ever be held legally accountable because of this.  That much is certain.

            by Lauren S on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:37:33 PM PDT

            •  I am convinced

              we will all be held accountable for this, though not in the legal sense of the word.

              by Avila on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:20:31 AM PDT

              •  Unfortunately, I have to agree

                by Lauren S on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:26:34 AM PDT

          •  hmmm

            I think maybe the CIA is throwing us a bone.
            Attention: We have 7,000 documents, it's up to you (Congress, ACLU) how to get them, but we have them, here, see the big boxes of papers sitting by the door.

            by Zwoof on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:07:20 AM PDT

            •  Very good point

              I hadn't thought of that.  Given how many CIA people have spoken out on the way they've been used by this admin and how their work has been bullshitted by this admin.... you may be absolutely onto the main point in this.

              Except this wasn't a leak, it was a cave-in by the institution itself to a lawsuit.

              So who knows.

              by Lauren S on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:57:01 AM PDT

            •  The timing certainly makes it look

              as if it's meant to be influential.

              More will come out once the Democratic candidate is certain.

              by Creosote on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:38:38 AM PDT

            •  The CIA is pissing on Congress

              and telling Congress to look at the rain.

              Now if only Congress weren't staring at the sky with its collective mouth open.

              by corvo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:26:53 AM PDT

          •  In criminal law, if I drove the car for a guy who

            held up a convenience store, he shot and killed the owner -- and I never even handled the weapon! -- the law would hold me also criminally responsible for murder!

            IMHO: everyone even remotely involved is culpable.
            From the very top down; from bottom up as well!!

            Aloha   ..  ..  ..

            by dolphin777 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:03:25 AM PDT

            •  Criminal law doesn't seem to apply

              when war crimes by our nation are involved.

              Ask Pelosi.  She doesn't even think Bush should be impeached and that's far below criminal law, as you're well aware. Obama doesn't support impeachment either.

              Question:  Will Obama sign us onto the ICC?  Yes or No?   I doubt it.   I support him but he's no saviour and i don't think for a second he will do so.

              by Lauren S on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:53:30 AM PDT

              •  Even if we are signed on

                What makes you think the US would comply with it?  Look how Bushco has treated the court rulings in this country - do you think a judge in Europe is going to be able to get anything accomplished if the US says F-U?

                by ColoTim on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:48:28 AM PDT

            •  Not if you're the chaufeur for the police

              commissioner.  The agents of government operate under the presumption that their behavior is lawful.  Not only is it necessary to prove that it's not, but it has to be demonstrated that there was an intention to carry out an unlawful act.  
              That's why we have to be very careful ahead of time whom we entrust with the authority to use force.  They have to be trustworthy and able to be relied on.  Liars should be ipso facto excluded.

              by hannah on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:03:14 AM PDT

        •  The records make it not torture since it's

          official behavior.  

          I still say it's difficult to argue against torture when "capital punishment" is OK.  The only real difference here is that the detainees are technically innocent in that they haven't been accorded the proper procedure to "demonstrate" their guilt.  But, if one argues and the argument is accepted that the proper procedures are only to be applied to citizens of the United States (though the Constitution makes no such specification), then the legal basis is muddled.

          Let this be a lesson that the perpetrators of crime are often keen scholars of the law.  It is, after all, their delight to get around the law and discomfit the law-abiding shmucks.  

          by hannah on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:57:55 AM PDT

        •  It seems pretty much to me

          We are torturing people and keeping records. Some democracy.

          Like the end-result of how bad bureaucracy can just destroy good government. They're doing all the decision-making, making check-marks and doing form-filling-out. They're just not bothering to lead or have any principles while doing so.

          by kath25 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:18:38 AM PDT

  •  7000 documents

    says there are those at CIA more concerned with CYA.  But I suspect we do not know the start of it.

    by barbwires on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:34:46 AM PDT

•  This makes me sick

  Will there ever be any accountability? Frakking criminals.

  Thanks for keeping this in view.

  by deha on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:12:32 PM PDT

•  I am particularly interested in the brazeness of

  this:

  Among other assertions, the CIA claimed that it did not have to release the documents because many consist of correspondence with the White House or top Bush administration officials . . .

  As skrp says, this is not a claim of executive privilege, apparently.  Only the Prez can claim that, and he's not; the CIA is.  I don't know the law here, but that looks like a gigantic middle finger to the American people, to me.  "Aren't you used to the NEW RULES, yet, losers?"

  I wonder if I send copies of my tax records to the White House then I don't have to send them to the IRS, because, you know, they are "correspondence to the White House."

  In any case, we are living in a country in which we know . . . we know . . . that the following is nothing more than a sick, pointless joke:

  The CIA confirmed that it requested—and received—legal advice from attorneys at the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel concerning these procedures.

  And that in itself is endlessly depressing.  We are living in a country in which the Justice Department, as a matter of course, is merely expected to cover-up and refuse to investigate the most heinous of actions by the Administration and its lackies.

  And I haven't even said a word yet about the secret prisons and the torture regime itself.

  by LithiumCola on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:17:21 PM PDT

  •  btw, depressing aspects aside, excellent

    diary, skrp.  Thanks!

    by LithiumCola on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:18:15 PM PDT

    •  Or rather, srkp.

      lol. sorry :)

      by LithiumCola on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:20:44 PM PDT

  •  We no longer have just 'executive privilege'

    we have whole executive BRANCH privilege.  The EPA head doesn't think he has to cough up his papers, Yoo  - ditto (even though he goes on TV and also is interviewed in Esquire), the list is endless. Power  grabbers all. Shame on Congress for letting them do this stuff.

    by sailmaker on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:15:52 PM PDT

•  If it takes 50 years

  this country needs to know EVERYTHING that can possibly be found out that the Cheney/Bush mafia did in their 8 years in Washington.

  by Steve Everett on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:23:03 PM PDT

  •  Yep.

    Hope it's sooner than that, because there's no statute of limitations on war crimes or crimes against humanity.

    by srkp23 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:24:46 PM PDT

  •  If it takes 50 years

    then we're all nothing but a bunch of lemmings.

    by dawnt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:37:40 PM PDT

  •  DeBushify ...

    ... start today.

    by Yellow Canary on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:34:25 AM PDT

•  but we're going to prosecute Omar Khadr

  for war crimes. he was 14 years old at the time of incident (child soldier by any logic but Bush's), has been in Guantanamo for 6 years. the last war crimes prosecution was Nuremberg.

  by Avila on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:34:02 PM PDT

  •  Quite a few war crimes prosecutions after that

    Yugoslavia
    Rwanda
    Sierra Leone

    In the last two cases the tribunals were held in the countries themselves.

    by Calouste on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:49:05 PM PDT

    •  There's not a chance in hell of prosecution

      The best thing we can do is put pressure on to stop every one of these policies and provide compensation (whatever the hell that might mean, how do you compensate someone for making the rest of their life a living nightmare?) to those who have been horrifically wronged.

      There are too many people complicit in both parties to think that there will ever be criminal action against these war criminals.  

      by Lauren S on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:52:45 PM PDT

    •  sorry, war crimes tribunals conducted by US

      typing too fast there; I apologize. also noteworthy is that Omar Khadr may be the first person in the world ever tried for war crimes, anywhere in the world, for act committed as a juvenile.

      Jameel Jaffer, Huffington Post

      by Avila on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:15:03 AM PDT

•  President Obama

  We are going to lead by example, by maintaining the highest standards of civil liberties and human rights, which is why I will close Guantanamo and restore habeas corpus and say no to torture.

  Because if you are ready for change, then you can elect a president who has taught the Constitution, and believes in the Constitution, and will obey the Constitution of the United States of America.

  --Barack Obama, Houston, 2/19/08.

  by Fawkes on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:00:13 PM PDT

  •  I am so ready for change

    and will not forget his promise. I hope no one forgets it.

    by Avila on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:04:03 PM PDT

    •  'We do not torture!'

      Bush lied.

      Those words need to be posted on his jail cell, courtesy of the American people.

      by tecampbell on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:19:00 PM PDT

•  Can't be true. WE DON'T TORTURE!

  by Cartoon Peril on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:02:47 PM PDT

•  A place for everything,

  and everything in its place.

  A hat tip to bureaucrats.  

  A wag of my finger to those who destroy documents (I was once a historian, you know).

  insert light of day

  by tecampbell on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:12:36 PM PDT

•  Torture?

  Is there a definition for torture in this country anymore? Do the people or the legislatures even know what legally constitutes torture?

  The A.G. obviously doesn't.

  Maybe we should remind them.

  

  by notquitedelilah on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:13:20 PM PDT

  •  There's no definition of torture that can't

    be gotten around invoking a little smirk here or there.

    by FudgeFighter on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:02:14 AM PDT

•  Thanks for this... especially the

  "What We Can Do" box.  Too often we limit ourselves to shouting into the cyberspace void.  It's nice to have something we can be proactive about, especially in the face of something this overwhelmingly evil.

  by pico on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:46:32 PM PDT

•  srkp23 thank you for this diary

  I had not read about this until I saw your diary.   This is just astounding, though not shocking...what is shocking anymore?

  I'll call my congressional reps but I don't hold out much hope of it making a difference. They are all 3 complicit.  But I'll call so my voice is heard nonetheless.   I hope everyone will do so because most reps and senators are not nearly as complicit as mine and should be made to care more about such a vital issue.  

  I'm really glad this made the rec list.  Torture issues  and action should be on the rec list here much more than it is.... people seem to care a lot more about the latest Jeremiah Wright or George Stephanopolous gotcha crap that doesn't even matter at all.  Torture matters....there are people BEING tortured right now and I highly doubt that any of them are guilty of anything but being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

  Thank you for the diary.

  by Lauren S on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:56:41 PM PDT

  •  Hopefully, after Jan 20, '09, we can "torture"

    Bush and his cronies with the threats of jailtime for all the illegal crap they have conspired in over the last several years.
    Of course, it will take years to unravel it all.

    by Phil S 33 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:56:20 AM PDT

    •  Considering all of the Democrats who are

      complicit?

      Fat chance.

      Reality's a bitch.  Torture isn't JUST by Republicans.

      by Lauren S on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:57:35 AM PDT

      •  if Obama's new AG starts investigating torture

        we should encourage them to "let the chips fall where they may". I don't regard a torture enabler as any kind of "good Democrat", regardless of how good his or her voting record is. I don't want Democrats who enable torture in my government or in my party.

        by alizard on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:42:35 AM PDT

        •  both of my senators and my congressional rep

          are complete enablers of torture and the war.

          Ready to see a good percentage of the Democratic Party's reps in Congress put in prison? I am, but that's why you won't see ANYbody criminally charged with anything.   The Dems won't even pursue it criminally.  Sure we can have reports out the ass fromthe Obama AG, great. Who cares.  Another report like the ones we've had from the GAO repeatedly during the Bush Admin.   A report.  Woohoo.

          Get my point?

          by Lauren S on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:49:37 AM PDT

        •  btw

          2 of my 3 reps that I speak of are dems who won't be losing any election until they retire.  war crimes enablers to the core.

          by Lauren S on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:50:33 AM PDT

          •  so we pressure Obama and the AG on this

            If Congresscritters are in jail with the rest of the rats, or have been shipped to The Hague, they won't be representing anybody.

            by alizard on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:26:44 PM PDT

•  The CIA has no place in a free society,

  imho. It does not answer to the public but claims to act in its interest... something wrong with that picture.  

  by FudgeFighter on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:00:35 AM PDT

  •  great comment & sig

    love the sig

    by Mosquito Pilot on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:10:36 AM PDT

    •  thanks

      by FudgeFighter on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:28:17 AM PDT