Skip to main content

In close investigation of the OPR report, Marcy Wheeler has uncovered another gruesome element of the Bush/Cheney torture regime.

CIA’s torturers asked DOJ to let them use mock burials. But DOJ said no.

PDF page 42 of the OPR Report (searchable copy here) includes a list of the torture techniques that Mitchell and Jessen recommended be used with Abu Zubaydah. Whereas the Bybee Two Techniques memo approves ten techniques, Mitchell and Jessen recommended twelve. In other words, Mitchell and Jessen asked for two techniques to be approved that did not get specific approval....

The twelfth technique–which Mitchell and Jessen wanted approved but which Yoo excluded because of the rush to approve waterboarding–is mock burial.

Now, it’s not clear whether Mitchell and Jessen ever did use mock burial with Abu Zubaydah. Zubdaydah didn’t mention it in the narrative he gave to the ICRC of his treatment.

But there are two more reasons why Yoo’s refusal to approve mock burial is dangerous for the CIA. First, an FBI agent told CIA and DOJ that the technique was borderline torture. Nevertheless, the CIA asked to have the technique available to it.

Also, any legal discussion of why mock burial would be a problem would focus on how torture statutes prohibit the threat of imminent death. Yet after mock burial was specifically excluded as a torture technique, CIA torturers went on to threaten detainees with a power drill and a gun. In other words, someone at that CIA had already been told, specifically, that they could not use the threat of imminent death on detainees. But on at least two occasions, they did so anyway.

Marcy has a follow-up post here.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:40 PM PST.

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Oh, lovely (8+ / 0-)

    Thank you Bush.  You asshole

  •  thank you (8+ / 0-)

    for this news.  i wish i could say i'm surprised but it dovetails with the mock executions.

    "Success, after all, loves a witness, but failure can't exist without one." -- Junot Díaz

    by Avila on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:42:25 PM PST

  •  Just when you think it couldn't have been (10+ / 0-)

    any worse. I wonder what else we don't know.

    In related and equally depressing news, the House passed it's intel bill last night ONLY after removing Rep. Slaughter's amendment criminalizing torture techniques:

    The House approved a major intelligence funding bill Friday after Democrats removed a provision that would have put CIA agents who used "cruel, inhuman and degrading" interrogation techniques behind bars for up to 15 years.

    Democrats were force to pull the bill from the House floor late Thursday after Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter added the provision without backing from other House leaders. Leaders wanted to avoid a debate over torture—and they likely wouldn't have been able to muster the votes to pass it with the language intact. The bill was reintroduced Friday without the torture language and passed 235-168.

    Reconciliation is a process I hope we can engage in every year - Eric Cantor, 2005

    by blueyescryinintherain on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:46:03 PM PST

    •  I support Rep. Slaughter in spirit, but (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ahianne, blueyescryinintherain

      isn't that already illegal?  It's not the law that's the problem, it's enforcement, both by the Department of "Justice" and by Congress.  Redundant law isn't helpful.

      That said, the extension to the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act" only adds to the injustice.

      Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

      by Simplify on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:49:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  speaking of which . . . (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greatdarkspot, Lavocat

        which has a greater chance of happening

        1.  The Obama Administration refuses to renew the PATRIOT Act

        or

        1.  It snows in hell this weekend.

        Editor, Red and Black Publishers, http://RedandBlackPublishers.Com

        by Lenny Flank on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:55:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's not really illegal unless it's prosecuted. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Simplify

        Maybe some day they will prosecute this shit, but until then, it's not reallllly illegal.

        •  The law does not matter unless it is enforced. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          2020adam

          is how I'd have phrased it.  Upon further reflection, your way is actually better because that's how many Americans will see the situation.  

          They see me trollin'. They hatin' Don't make my high school civics teacher out to be a liar and expect me to like it.

          by obnoxiotheclown on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:48:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, and I think there are actual (0+ / 0-)

            legal theory arguments that can be made, claiming that something is only illegal if there is an enforced law against the action.

            •  "If government prosecutors aren't worried about (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Simplify, 2020adam

              these blatant violations, we shouldn't be worried either."   The American people start having fewer and fewer fixed notions of how their government should operate.   Eventually, just about anything goes with them excepting, of course, a few malcontents like us.....

              It's the social and psychological side of this that I find interesting.  A significant percentage of Americans now have no problem with things that we used to consider the main reason we were better than the Soviets. Secret CIA torture prisons were things only lunatics believed in fifteen years ago.  

              Personally, I'm beginning to think the game is pretty much over.  Freedom was fun while it lasted, but thanks to laziness and a good dose of propaganda, no one really knows what it is anymore.  

              They see me trollin'. They hatin' Don't make my high school civics teacher out to be a liar and expect me to like it.

              by obnoxiotheclown on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 07:17:23 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  another word for nothing left to lose (0+ / 0-)

                Americans, being on top of the world at the moment and just starting to head downhill, have everything in the world to lose.

                Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

                by Simplify on Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 02:15:11 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  By Yoo's own reasoning, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Avila, Ahianne, Creosote

    anything done by any member of the executive branch is legal in the War on Terra, and the only recourse would be for Congress to de-fund or impeach.  Some justice.

    We're still fighting the 1970s.  Guess Nixon was right that it's not illegal if the President does it, and we never should've left Vietnam either!

    Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

    by Simplify on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:46:16 PM PST

    •  Uhm, Yoo was from the DOJ (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Avila

      That means his team said no.

    •  let's just remind the audience that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Johnny Q

      Obama has not legally repealed ANY of the Bush practices, has not punished anyone anywhere for any of them, and will in fact in a few days sign a renewal of most of them.

      The War on Terror is a good guy, now.

      Hooray USA.

      Editor, Red and Black Publishers, http://RedandBlackPublishers.Com

      by Lenny Flank on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:50:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  On Obama's 3rd day in office, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ahianne, Johnny Q

        he issued an executive order revoking all OLC guidance on prisoner interrogation, indicating that the army field manual was the sole standard.

        There are of course numerous techniques in the army field manual that would be considered torture by any other CAT signatory, and there's evidence that type of torture is being used at Baghram.

        Executive Order 13440 of July 20, 2007, is revoked. All executive directives, orders, and regulations inconsistent with this order, including but not limited to those issued to or by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from September 11, 2001, to January 20, 2009, concerning detention or the interrogation of detained individuals, are revoked to the extent of their inconsistency with this order. Heads of departments and agencies shall take all necessary steps to ensure that all directives, orders, and regulations of their respective departments or agencies are consistent with this order. Upon request, the Attorney General shall provide guidance about which directives, orders, and regulations are inconsistent with this order.

      •  Also note that in the Leahy hearing today, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ahianne

        the DoJ representative (Gary G. Grindler) testified that 7 of the 8 OLC opinions relating to this issue had been formally withdrawn per Obama's order, and that the 8th is in conformance with Obama's executive order, as it refutes or modifies the other 7 OLC opinions.  This conversation starts at 86:45 in the webcast.  Note that the hearing itself doesn't start until about 30:00 into the webcast.

        There are other issues left dangling, where the DoJ is to get back to Leahy, but the whole sequence is worth listening to.  Leahy is doing his job well.

  •  Not that I mind but how did this not get redacted (6+ / 0-)

    out of the OPR since there's an obsession that the bad guys not find out our "methods"

    See:The whole British court thing on releasing torture info.

    Afghanistan:Graveyard to empires-It's not just a bumpersticker

    by JML9999 on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:46:21 PM PST

  •  but . . . but . . . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lotlizard

    I thought the war on terror was a good thing now?  Didn't we just have a front-page piece today about how wonderful it is that Dems are finally standing up and cheering about Obama Administration's brave and strong national security steps?

    So far, we have:

    1. Clinton Administration passes draconian anti-terrorism laws; D's cheer
    1.  Bush Administration adopts Clinton's anti-terrorism policies and adds their own; D's boo
    1.  Obama Administration adopts Bush's anti-terrorism policies and adds their own; D's cheer

    Let me predict:

    1.  Palin Administration adopts Obama's anti-terrorism policies and adds their own, D's boo

    Damn, you need a bloody scorecard to keep track of what's a good policy and what's a bad policy anymore.

    Editor, Red and Black Publishers, http://RedandBlackPublishers.Com

    by Lenny Flank on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:47:47 PM PST

    •  I'd take what you had to say seriously (0+ / 0-)

      if you at least recognized that the Taliban is a serious problem.

      But you do not.  So I don't.

      •  I'd take YOU more seriously if (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Simplify, lotlizard

        you answered my simple questions:

        1.  Is the Taliban a more serious "problem" or "peril" than the USSR was?
        1.  If we beat the USSR, with its 5 million man army and its 70,000 multi-megaton thermonuclear weapons, without any national security state, why do we need a national security state to beat some lightly-armed peasants who have never done anything outside of Afghanistan?

        Editor, Red and Black Publishers, http://RedandBlackPublishers.Com

        by Lenny Flank on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:52:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, considering this (0+ / 0-)

          lightly-armed peasants who have never done anything outside of Afghanistan

          I'll let others decide who should be taken more seriously

          •  I didn't get your answer (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lotlizard

            try again, please.

            Editor, Red and Black Publishers, http://RedandBlackPublishers.Com

            by Lenny Flank on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:56:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Conflating the Taliban with the 9/11 plotters (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Simplify, Johnny Q

              … is the latest sleight of hand Democratic hawks have adopted from the "any excuse to remake the Middle East and occupy Central Asia forever" neocons.

              Basically, their line is that Afghanistan as a state attacked the U.S., something that's patently false.

              The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war.

              by lotlizard on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:44:43 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The threat of terrorism does not require us to (0+ / 0-)

                set up a national security state, it enables it.  

                They see me trollin'. They hatin' Don't make my high school civics teacher out to be a liar and expect me to like it.

                by obnoxiotheclown on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:52:53 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  we should perhaps remind everyone about that, uh, (0+ / 0-)

                  "threat of terrorism" . .  .

                  In a typical year, about 10,000 people are killed, worldwide, by terrorists.

                  In that same year, about 24,000 people are killed, worldwide, by lightning strikes.

                  Yes, that's right -- over twice as many people are killed by lightning every year as are killed by terrorists.

                  By any rational measure, "terrorism" is a minuscule non-threat.

                  Alas, the "war on terror" is not based on anything rational.

                  Editor, Red and Black Publishers, http://RedandBlackPublishers.Com

                  by Lenny Flank on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:59:12 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  yeah, I know (0+ / 0-)

                It is sad to see the Dems embracing the neocon agenda just as enthusiastically as the Repugs do, though.

                Sad but not unexpected.

                Fortunately, militarism always fails and kills itself.  UN-fortunately, that failure always costs a huge price in blood and treasure.

                It is frustrating to watch us all run enthusiastically down that path to disaster again.

                Editor, Red and Black Publishers, http://RedandBlackPublishers.Com

                by Lenny Flank on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:55:49 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  by the way . . . (0+ / 0-)

        I was opposed to the Taliban even before the Dems under Clinton were trying very hard to sell oil pipelines to them.

        Editor, Red and Black Publishers, http://RedandBlackPublishers.Com

        by Lenny Flank on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:03:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  This fits in perfectly with... (8+ / 0-)

    their mocking of the Geneva Conventions.

  •  This is disgusting (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lavocat, Johnny Q

    I cannot believe the levels we sunk to under Bush II.  

  •  Am I the only one wondering... (6+ / 0-)

    torture statutes prohibit the threat of imminent death. Yet after mock burial was specifically excluded as a torture technique, CIA torturers went on to threaten detainees with a power drill and a gun.

     Yet waterboarding is somehow ok?  Making someone believe they are drowning to death is not threat of imminent death and is approved?   The whole point of the waterboard is to set off an instinctive reflex which convinces the victim that they are dying.  Threatening detainees with drills and a gun is not the extent of threat of imminent death used by the CIA by a long shot.  

    I am the neo-con nightmare, I am a liberal with the facts.

    by bhfrik on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:58:28 PM PST

    •  Yoo even admits in the first or second memo (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ahianne, Creosote, Simplify, lotlizard, bhfrik

      that waterboarding constitutes an imminent threat of death, and then rationalizes it away since (in his words) it doesn't cause significant pain or cause permanent physical or psychological injury.  Not only is he factually wrong on the latter two items, but it's irrelevant - a threat of death is considered torture regardless of whether pain or injury is involved.

      •  Again, I'm left to wonder (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skrekk

        what is the difference between one form of feigned execution and the next?  An empty pistol dry fired against a prisoners head would not actually cause permanent physical injury.  It seems like one form of threat of imminent death is roughly comparable to the next in terms of causing permanent psychological injury.   If anything the waterboard in any context other than a completely controlled environment, in which the victim can call off the torture whenever they choose, leaves victims more traumatized than almost any other form of feigned execution.

        I am the neo-con nightmare, I am a liberal with the facts.

        by bhfrik on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:58:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Waterboarding is obviously far worse, but Yoo (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Creosote, bhfrik

          and Koester were smart enough not to cite a recent prosecution under the Torture Victims Protection Act, where a federal court held that imprisonment for five days under bad conditions while being threatened with bodily harm, interrogated and held at gunpoint amounted to torture.  In fact they cited no prosecutions, any case history, or any precedent.  Instead they cited an irrelevant Medicare reimbursement statute.  That's not incompetence, that's conspiracy.

    •  I'm pretty sure he's also cool with... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bhfrik

      bombing villages full of civilians if the President orders it. Sooo, I really do think the argument at heart is:

      Yea, you can definitely read all of our memos and our justifications. But what we're really trying to say is this: if the Commander in Chief does it during wartime, it's cool.

  •  Poe (0+ / 0-)

    They should have made them watch The Serpent and the Rainbow and read them from some of Edgar Allen Poe's short stories.  That might have freaked them out.  Actually, I can't get freaked out over a mock burial.  Lots of worse things you can do to people than that.

  •  are we (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Liberal Thinking, lotlizard

    Are we still torturing prisoners--or sending them to other countries to be tortured?  On another thread it was suggested that the DofJ couldn't go after the torture lawyers because that would mean going after the present administration.

  •  Wow (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Creosote

    I had no idea that any act could be distasteful to John Yoo.  I' m shocked that he had any standard.

    I think you have hit the nail on the head with this diary.  Simply put, as soon as you ban one act and allow another, you have to explain the difference between the two.  And I think it will be impossible to find a way to make waterboarding OK if something else is not unless the other act actually leads to death.

    •  waterboarding is not OK (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lotlizard, skrekk, Johnny Q

      It is illegal under international law.  Period.  It doesn't matter if Yoo disagrees, or if Obama disagrees, or if the entire Mormon Tabernacle Choir disagrees.  It is illegal under international law. End of debate.

      Further, waterboarding is a WAR CRIME.

      And failing to prosecute war criminals, or covering up for them, is ALSO A WAR CRIME.

      It is a fortunate thing for the Clinton, Bush AND Obama Administrations that, in the real world, international law doesn't apply to us and we can do whatever the heck we want . . . or they'd all be in Spandau.

      Editor, Red and Black Publishers, http://RedandBlackPublishers.Com

      by Lenny Flank on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:17:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But apparently no one is responsible. (0+ / 0-)

        Yoo's not responsible for his willfully corrupt opinion - Margolis says both Yoo & Bybee were merely incompetent.  The torturers aren't responsible because they were carefully following OLC advice.  The principle conspirators - the NSC principals along with Bush & Cheney - aren't responsible because they too were following OLC guidance.  Conveniently all of Yoo & Philbin's emails have been deleted, so we won't know what improper direction they received from Addington or Cheney.  The original author of these memos, Jennifer Koester, isn't responsible because she was just a low-level DoJ attorney, new on the job, but was smart enough not to cite any of the extensive precedents...because it would have undermined their desire to torture.

        And don't forget the MCA - retroactively no one can be held responsible for what was an obvious conspiracy to torture.

        •  I don't know why they bothered (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          skrekk

          Everybody knows that the US doesn't have to follow international law anyway if it doesn't want to.  The biggest bully on the block can ALWAYS do whatever he wants.  Who can stop him?  (shrug)

          Editor, Red and Black Publishers, http://RedandBlackPublishers.Com

          by Lenny Flank on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 07:02:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I think you miunderstood my post (0+ / 0-)

        I was saying that Yoo applying a standard made his hypocrisy with regard to waterboarding even more apparent.

        There is no doubt in my mind that waterboarding is torture.  And I am firmly in the camp that we must prosecute wherever it leads.  In fact, Obama's "let put it all behind us" has been my number one (of many) complaint with him.

        The Bush/Cheney torture regime will never be behind us until we bring it out in the open and hold those who set it up accountable.

        The immorality of it is the worst of it, but torture's lack of effectiveness and its contribution to the creation of more terrorists is not far behind.  The fact that many of the victims had committed no crime elevates it too pure evil.

  •  American war crimes (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    melvynny, lotlizard, skrekk, Johnny Q

    I met a geriatric veteran of WW2 who, upon hearing about these obscenities, disgustedly shook his head and said two things: "I didn't fight for this" and "This is what societies do when they've lost their moral compass."

    I suspect he's sorry he lived to see this day.

    " ... or a baby's arm holding an apple!"

    by Lavocat on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:05:09 PM PST

    •  but this is what militarism inevitably does (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lavocat

      That is why militarism has been an utter disaster for every society that has tried it.

      For the life of me, I have no idea why both political parties in the US are so enthusiastic about rushing down that path to disaster.

      Editor, Red and Black Publishers, http://RedandBlackPublishers.Com

      by Lenny Flank on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:07:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's what they call a Texas Funeral (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Situational Lefty

    And these guys are still at large WHY?

    At the very least Mitchell and Jessen should be behind bars.  The people who gave them their marching orders doubly so.

    You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

    by Johnny Q on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:06:52 PM PST

  •  When you think it cannot get any worse (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stevej, lotlizard, Lavocat, Johnny Q

    This actually is surprising to me, and very disturbing.

  •  Is there anything more terrifying? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Simplify, lotlizard, Lavocat, 2020adam

    This is a primal fear, the stuff of night terrors.  I am so horrified I think I may throw up.

    "Let reverence for the laws . . . become the political religion of the nation." ~ Abraham Lincoln

    by noweasels on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:09:04 PM PST

  •  I feel physically ill reading this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Liberal Thinking

    The Bush administration robbed me of pride in my country.  It's one of the (many) reasons I hated Bush so much.  Obama's election and his conduct in office restored much of that.

    But when I read about this embrace of torture, particularly this technique, the bile rises in my mouth again.  Was there nothing that was beneath that administration? Nothing?!

    "Dogs' lives are too short. Their only fault, really." -- Agnes Sligh Turnball

    by EyeStreetMom on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:18:17 PM PST

  •  If I were Yoo! (0+ / 0-)

    I'd very seriously consider doing two things, right quick: hiring a heavily-armed bodyguard and hiring an official foodtaster.

    Cuz, dude, Yoo are probably marked for death.  I think this man would probably be safer IN jail than he is outside of it.

    Even if he is never prosecuted, Yoo has been unmasked as the legal toady responsible for enabling the entire apparatus of American war crimes.

    This man is the living embodiment of everything that is wrong with modern America; the quintessence of the banality of evil - and an attorney no less!

    And to make matters worse, he seems to have a permanent smile upon his face - almost begging someone to wipe it off.

    We all need to be de-Bushified.

    " ... or a baby's arm holding an apple!"

    by Lavocat on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:19:12 PM PST

    •  that's not exactly true . . . (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lavocat

      Yoo has been unmasked as the legal toady responsible for enabling the entire apparatus of American war crimes

      Many of the most brutal "counterterrorism tools" were begun under the Clinton Administration, not the Bushites.  The Clintonites, for example, first introduced the idea of deporting "terrorists" who had not been convicted of any crime, using secret tribunals and secret evidence--and imprisoning them indefinitely without charges if they couldn't find a suitable place to deport them.  This led DIRECTLY to the idea that "terrorists" simply have no legal rights and that "terrorism" should be treated outside the law, at the sole discretion of the "commander in chief".

      The Clintonites also introduced the practice of "extraordinary rendition", where people were illegally kidnapped and sent to foreign countries like Libya to be tortured. The Bushites simply altered that practice by performing their own torture rather than outsourcing it to friendly dictators.

      And the Obama-ites have repealed none of those things, and still retains "legal authority" to do all of them (though of course we don't know yet whether the current administration actually IS still doing all of them).

      In any international war crimes trial, all three administrations would be in for a whole world of shit.  But fortunately for them (though unfortunately for democracy and the rule of law) the US, in the real world, doesn't have to follow international law and can do whatever it wants.

      Editor, Red and Black Publishers, http://RedandBlackPublishers.Com

      by Lenny Flank on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:30:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wall Street Journal asked Yoo to write an op-ed (0+ / 0-)

      The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war.

      by lotlizard on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:52:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Added to Dkosopedia (0+ / 0-)

    This has been added as a resource to Prosecuting Officials for Crimes. Keep up the pressure.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site