[Welcome David Cole, and Host bmaz - bev]
In a sea of subterfuge, secrecy and flat out dishonesty spanning not only the Administration of George W. Bush, but, sadly, that of Barack Obama as well, one blockbuster voluntary governmental release of foundational documents in the critical war on terror legal areas of the torture and warrantless wiretapping programs stands out. The April 16, 2009 disclosure by the Obama Administration of the never-before-seen secret memos describing, in graphic detail, the brutal interrogation techniques used by the CIA, their contractors and other governmental and quasi-governmental actors under the Bush administration’s “war on terror.”
Professor David Cole of the Georgetown University Law Center has published the full set of memos in their entirety along with his own substantive introduction and discussion, as well as foreword by leading international lawyer Philippe Sands. The memos speak for themselves and are chilling. They have all been discussed to one degree or another here at Firedoglake and Emptywheel (see here, here, here and here for instance).
Torture Memos: Rationalizing the Unthinkable is a wonderful resource; to have all the memos in one place, indexed and available for reference any time, is worth the price all by itself. For me, however, the forty page introduction by Professor Cole is just as valuable. The beginning of his discussion is beautiful in its symmetry and setup:
“THOSE METHODS, read on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009, appear graphic and disturbing,” said Dennis Blair, President Barack Obama’s director of national intelligence, as he sought to downplay the horror of CIA interrogation techniques described and sanctioned in four previously secret Justice Department memos disclosed on April 16, 2009. The techniques, he suggested, would have looked very different in August 2002, when they were first authorized. “It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.” So begins 1984, the classic novel of the security state by George Orwell. It’s unlikely that Blair intended the allusion, but the reference could not have been more apt. The Justice Department memos do precisely what Orwell foretold: twist language and the law in order to rationalize the unthinkable. The interrogation techniques used by the CIA against al Qaeda suspects have inspired two competing narratives. Many have argued that the techniques were patently illegal, and surely would have been viewed as such had an enemy of the United States used them against our soldiers—in August 2002 or April 2009. No good-faith legal argument could possibly give a green light to stripping a suspect naked, slamming him repeatedly into a wall, dousing him with cold water, slapping his face, depriving him of any sleep for eleven days straight, forcing him into stress positions and small dark boxes for hours at a time, and waterboarding him repeatedly—183 times in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and 83 times in the case of Abu Zubaydah, two al Qaeda detainees.
In addition to the wonderful introduction commentary and analysis by Professor Cole, the other “new” material most readers will not be familiar with is the entirety, including preface, of the little discussed April 23, 2009 “Release of Declassified Narrative Regarding Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel Opinions on the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program”, a fifteen page document compiled by the office of then SSCI chairman Senator John D. Rockefeller that gives a hint of how Rockefeller viewed the various OLC memos and the process entailed in getting them released. Although it is typically reserved, as you would expect from the Senate on such a sensitive topic, it does present an appropriate coda on the compilation.
There is, unfortunately, not space within the confines of this introductory post to go into each of the different torture memos and discuss their significance. Most all of you have been doing this for months here at Firedoglake and Emptywheel, or at other locations; so you are already familiar with them. Instead, I would like to touch on what Professor Cole terms “The Memos In Context”.
In law, context and facts count; in truth, pure law is a hollow shell without them. Yet the authors of the torture memos seem malignantly detached from the human facts and context they were operating in. The work demonstrates a singular lack of good faith and professional ethics in its construct. From the well known ignorance of the seminal case of Youngstown to the machinations undertaken to fix the generated legal opinions around conduct that had already occurred (and, not to mention, was being compartmentalized to prevent honest relation of the actual conduct being performed in the field), the effort was distinctly unethical and taken in extreme bad faith.
Another germane question is how the OLC Opinions were ever justified in being presented as reliance opinions in the first place in light of the fact they were not distributed to the end users (not to mention violation of every other construct of a valid reliance opinion). These are, hopefully, points that will be addressed in the long awaited Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) Report. It is a shame that the government has seen fit to obfuscate and delay release on the OPR effort, it would have been the perfect addition to Professor Cole’s worthy compilation.
The other area of context is the relationship of the contents of the memos, or lack thereof, to established black letter international law and convention. The Conventions Against Torture and Geneva Conventions are, of course, the issue. The memos are a fascinating case study of completely disingenuous effort and intent in the way the authors cumulatively seek to disingenuously distinguish both the international and domestic norms and precedent, and flat ignore the same when they cannot sufficiently bend it to their desire. All to serve the predetermined craven edict of their Executive Branch masters in the Bush/Cheney Administration.
There is a great deal of information and background at David’s website for the book, www.torturememos.net
With that, let us welcome Professor David Cole!
About The Author: David Cole is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, a volunteer staff attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights, legal affairs correspondent for “The Nation,” a regular contributor to the “New York Review of Books,” and a commentator on National Public Radio’s A”ll Things Considered.” He is the author of six books, including “Less Safe, Less Free: Why America Is Losing the War on Terror,” published in 2007, which won the Palmer Civil Liberties Prize for best book on national security and civil liberties and “Enemy Aliens: Double Standards and Constitutional Freedoms in the War on Terrorism,” which received the American Book Award in 2004. “No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice System” was named Best Non-Fiction Book of 1999 by the Boston Book Review and best book on an issue of national policy in 1999 by the American Political Science Association. Other works include “Terrorism And The Constitution,” published by The New Press, and “Justice At War,” published by the New York Review of Books.



158 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
David, Welcome to the Lake.
Bmaz, Thank you for Hosting today’s Book Salon.
Good afternoon one and all, and welcome David Cole!
Thanks for having me.
I have a question. can Mr. cole speculate on why the Obama administration is hindering the facts from coming out? Is it that horrendous? If so why are these men still walking free.
David, what have you heard in regards to the potential release date for the OPR Report and what you feel will be the result of it? And how much of it do you figure will be redacted?
Prof. Cole, Thank you for taking the time to speak to us today and for the effort in putting this material together in book form. I appreciate your work. I should add that I am a reporter but I will not use anything you say here in a story without your permission first.
I am going to raise two questions on behalf of Mary, who had left these in the comments over at Emptywheel’s blog:
Should Congress consider legislation to update the current statute re establishment of the OLC and which would prohibit any claim of good faith reliance on a non-public opinion issued by OLC (or the AG)? If not, is there a way to circumvent the approach of OLC and the Exec branch operating to generate “secret law” which does a complete end run around Congress and the courts and is forever subject to repetition without review?
2. Is it worthwhile to even discuss whether or not Congress should or shouldn’t consider legislation, since the blatant violations of legislation have been met over and over by Congressional inaction? IOW, does it matter what legislation we have if Congress abandons its role as a check?
Welcome to Firedoglake, thanks for leading the discussion on this important topic.
The easy political thing to do here is nothing. The difficult thing is to demand accountability — given how high up the chain of command responsibility goes. President Obama’s advisers have indicated that they don’t want this issue to take up all the attention and energy in Washington, when they are trying to move forward on many other agendas, including healthcare, Afghanistan, the economy, etc.
But the Convention Against Torture, recognizing that it would often be easier to ignore than to investigate torture, imposes a LEGAL obligation to investigate and refer for possible prosecution credible allegations of torture by persons within the nation’s jurisdiction. So this should not be a matter of political discretion — we are under a mandatory obligation to investigate.
David,
Should one be amazed that there were lawyers pliant and corrupt enough to write such memos?
Is there any information on the (yeah, sure) release of the Senate Intel Committee report on torture?
David,
Thanks so much for taking the time to be here and especially for putting together such a valuable resource. I had been thinking along lines similar to this from bmaz:
The authors of the memos come off as tremendously ethically challenged, both in terms of crafting documents to “legalize” the atrocity of torture and in perverting the function of OLC away from rendering independent legal opinion into producing an opinion to reach a pre-set conclusion.
Now and then, when particularly bad business scandals come to light, there are public cries to strengthen the teaching of ethics in business schools. Is there any chance that this episode will result in efforts to improve ethics curricula in law schools?
The latest I have heard is that all the responses from the attorneys under investigatin may not even be in yet, and that it then needs to be subjected to a declassification review. This report, however, which reportedly recommends that the attorneys responsible for writing the Torture Memos be referred for possible discipline by their state bars, should be very interesting. I don’t think the OPR would recommend such measures absent some very strong evidence that lawyers twisted the law to reach a predetermined result. They may have drafts, emails, faxes, etc., that would support that case — a case that I think can be made pretty strongly by the memos themselves.
David, a warm welcome to the Lake. I was wondering about the CIA’s request to include one specific technique…the use of an insect to terrorize a particular subject. This seems very odd, implying a degree of selectivity the other methods don’t. Any idea who that was intended to be used upon and why they thought that individual would react adversely?
I note that the only example I know of insects being placed on individuals to get them to “give up intelligence” comes from an IRRC interview with one of the detainees who was told that Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s kids were placed in confinement boxes and had insects put upon them. Was there someone else? Also the timing of the request was about the same time as the time the children were supposedly captured.
This is a good question considering who the particular lawyers are. Lawyers are like any other profession, there are members of the profession willing to do anything for money. These lawyers, however, worked in the OLC, which is quite a distinct and different matter. As David states in his book, OLC attorneys are charged with being the “Constitutional conscience” of the DOJ and, quite frankly, the executive branch. These are not designed to be attorneys blindly serving the wish of the executive master, but rather the rule of law and integrity of the Constitution. If in doubt, it is their charge to err on the side of the law, ethics and the Constitution. These lawyers authoring the torture memos did the diametric opposite.
David, thanks so much for visiting today. Was hoping I would get to attend this salon in particular, though all are wonderful.
In mid-May I put on a black armband and vowed not to take it off until this country acknowledged and righted and began amends to the grotesqueness of the torture program. I thought my wearing it would be for a short while. I don’t think so any more.
I think the surreal, off the charts moral imbecility of the Right detracts and covers from the moral imbecility of the progressives.
Obama plays Lucy and the football about things that need to be addressed without negotiation … they are moral outrages.
Saw Moore’s movie last night, he says “evil cannot be regulated.” Sometimes things are black and white.
Great questions! I think there ought to be a very strong presumption that OLC memos be public, particularly where they effectively have the force of law, but there would have to be a fairly broad exception for covert operations, deliberative process, etc., and those exceptions surely would have been invoked in this case. So I’m not sure it’s really the answer.
One institutional reform that would be worth considering is requiring more input from or outreach to interested agencies by OLC. Had the OLC process considered the views of the General Counsels of the military, for example, or from the State Department, I doubt it could have adopted the same interpretations. But the journalistic reports we have suggest that in this instance OLC iced out anyone who might object.
Another reform might be to appoint someone in OLC to be responsible for advocating for individual and human rights. There is such an office in DHS. I think given the absence of an adversarial public process, one check might be to assign someone that role. That would certainly affect the debate, and would in all likelihood affect outcomes as well. At this point, no one really speaks for “the people” in OLC. They speak instead for the government.
Perhaps not amazed — but horrified. This was truly law and lawyering at its worst. And unless we call them on it, that’s what we can expect.
Here is another terrific question from Mary:
I would add the children of Aafia Siddiqui to that question, as well.
Prof. Cole,
There was a report recently revolving around the OPR report and the fact that it would be unlikely that John Yoo could face any disciplinary action from the state bar in Pennsylvania, where he is licensed to practice law, because the statute of limitations has expired. What else can the state bar do, if anything, to punish Yoo if that’s what the report recommends?
Great question. I think this story is already being taught in many law schools as a case study in how lawyering goes bad. There are complicated ethical debates about the government lawyer’s role, about the role of lawyer in providing advice before the fact as to a defense after the fact, and about whether the rules are sufficiently demanding. So yes, this has been a teachable moment, and I suppose we can only hope that today’s law students learn something from it.
Man, no kidding. I have been shocked at how the media has bought off on the claimed thin reeds of “good faith” and “what close and difficult questions they were dealing with”. It is complete baloney. The memos themselves are a ticket to liability if one wanted to dissect them and take the actors to task.
I haven’t looked into the statute of limitations question with regard to the Pennsylvania bar rules. The fact that much of what they did here remained secret for so long may provide an argument for tolling the statute.
thank you!
Has any powerful country that hasn’t been utterly defeated in war ever had anyone tried for war crimes? Aren’t the Geneva Conventions just another tool for the powerful to use against the weak?
That’s very encouraging.
Didn’t Taft and Zelikow lodge complaints at some point in the process and then get shut out? It seems as if the leadership is willing to be craven, even voices designed for dissent can be eliminated or compatmentalized.
That’s exactly what I try to show in this book. Moreover, I argue that while much of the focus has been on Yoo and Bybee’s initial memo, because it was leaked five years ago, in fact the later memos are in many ways even more damning — written long after 9/11 panic had faded, after learning of CIA abuses, after learning that the tactics had thwarted no ticking time bombs, and after the law had been clarified in public to make it all the more clear that these tactics were illegal. Yet thru 2007, the OLC wrote secret memo after secret memo reassuring the CIA that it could do everything it asked to do. That’s why I maintain that these memos are the real “smoking guns” in the torture controversy, and why I think it’s really important that people take the trouble to read them and to understand just how bad they really are.
The title says it all
So cynical!! But a good question. Not sure, but I think that individuals have been held liable for war crimes. But I’m not aware of higher-ups being held responsible except in victor over defeated scenarios. But of course, the legitimacy of the rules turns on their equal applicability to all.
The power of group think and the slippery slope of incremental normalization of group think kool-aid drinking, getting thicker and thicker.
Why is Jay Bybee serving his lifetime appointment? Is there no way to prevent him from taking on his role as judge until there is some accountability?
John Yoo in his role of teacher? What a travesty.
Scott Peck talks about specialization in his book, People of the Lie, whereby the moral buck gets passed along so that each part of the travesty deflects responsibility. Peck also says a “follower is never a whole person.” So they don’t think or feel about what job they are doing or the consequences of it.
Yeah, I think a bar always has the general jurisdiction to discipline its members irrespective of such a provision (the Penn clause is 4 years); I would argue that is designed for traditional atty-client matters such as fee complaints and not binding on a continuing program that was cloaked like Yoo was involved in.
BTW, I disagree with the use of the word “unthinkable.” Torture is a time honored (or dishonered if you prefer) practice, and I am not a bit surprised that the U.S. govt followed most other govts in using it.
exactly — and that’s why one institutional reform would be to try to stop that from happening again. My suspicion is that some of this will be a focus of the OPR report.
Welcome Prof. Cole.
Why should any American trust the American system of Justice in relation to the Torture/ Murder that has occurred?
I’m only for an International War Crimes Tribunal.This involves so many countries where torture, in our names, was carried out and the various countries where the victims came from.
How long should an innocent Torture Victim await Justice? Years or Tens of years?
It’s been said ” you’re doing it wrong if they die”. About 108 did die during questioning, so even in their minimalist definition they admit torture.
The only way forward is a complete purging of the virus, Torture/ Murder, thugs that thought up and carried out the orders.
David – I was wondering if you could comment on one rationale the Obama Administration has used in blocking the release of many of the memos. The logic is that these are the work-product of a lawyer-client consultation regarding a potential legal case. But they also argue that the actions were “beyond the regular work of the client” or some such nonsense. This seems just so much jibberish to me…if the individuals were acting beyond their official duties why should they have OLC lawyers in the first place, rather than private lawyers. And since it would likely be the Federal Government prosecuting why would an individual be the client?
It seems as if the Justice Department is trying to have it both ways…denying culpability (these are rogue actors), while at the same time blocking access by claiming they are protected by some governmental lawyer-client privilege granted to these rogue actors.
I think we will be finding that out. Still I thought Spain was trying Bushies and Italy was trying those CIA agents who kidnapped Italian Muslims?
Life tenure for federal judges and university professors means that until there is some real finding of wrongdoing, they will retain their offices. I am encouraged by grassroots efforts to hold them accountable, however, by protesting when they speak, etc.
I think that is exactly right and analogous to the concept of cold reflection and premeditation.
Not cynical, just practical. Laws are never applied equally for the powerful and the powerless. The U.S. crack vs. powder cocaine laws are just a simple current example.
To all the success you have observed, i.e., none.
The ICC defers to the offenders’ host country for prosecutions, but has stated that it could step in to prosecute if the host country states that it refuses to prosecute. bmaz has stated several times his doubt that the US would ever face a real ICC prosecution. Do you agree? Did Bush’s refutation of the signing on to the ICC work, or can jus cogens and obligatio erga omnes prevail?
Welcome, Professor Cole, and thank you bmaz for hosting.
I wish to focus upon the role of the CIA in the formation of the OLC memos. I notice that Yoo (or Bybee, or whoever inserted this kind of language) makes a point in the August 1 memo to Rizzo that their advice is predicated on “facts” the CIA provided to it. This is followed by the statement, “We also understand that you do not have any facts in your possession contrary to the facts outlined here, and this opinion is limited to these facts. If these facts were to change, this advice would not necessarily apply.”
While the OLC memos clearly state that OLC received representations on the medical and psychological effects of SERE-like techniques from CIA, we know from the recently released CIA OIG report that such representations were tasked to the CIA’s Office of Technical Services, part of CIA’s Science and Technology Directorate.
I am being this specific because I’ve recently documented how a CIA researcher with ties to the S&T Directorate headed up a research program into the effects of SERE “torture”, working with subjects from SERE training, and that a number of federally-financed research reports were published on this from the early to mid 1990s onward. These peer-reviewed studies showed that the effects of SERE-produced stress was debilitating, and analyzed specific biophysical markers that allowed measurement of it. While supposedly studied to help with future treatment of PTSD, the study of such physical markers could be used, given proper cross-referencing with a databank of such markers, to analyze how a human being is responding to the stress of torture.
I believe that this was one main reason for the suppression of the CIA/military SERE research in the OLC memos… they pointed too directly to the experimental nature of the torture operation. In fact, if you read the Rizzo 8/1/02 memo as an institutional review board document allowing a particular kind of experiment, its strangeness begins to make a kind of diabolical sense.
While the published memos make it appear (especially the Bradbury memos) that CIA’s Office of Medical Services was vetting these techniques, at least initially, OMS was kept out of the loop on the proposals for the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (per the CIA OIG). Meanwhile, whatever CIA/OTS supplied to the OLC attorneys (which included representations, supposedly, from JPRA-SERE schools), was in fact a big lie, as they suppressed information on the debilitating effects of SERE techniques — effects that had been researched by its own staff (and other military researchers, as well), and costing at a minimum hundreds of thousands of dollars. (I have recent evidence that such research was in fact budgeted at over $2 million, again at a minimum, from 2002-2008.)
What I’m asking here, Professor Cole, is this: Would concrete evidence of suppression of scientific evidence in the OLC memos be of importance in prosecuting those involved in their drafting? Would it provide evidence of conspiracy? Were Yoo/Bybee/Addington trying to provide themselves an out when they hung representation of the “facts” so heavily upon CIA guarantees?
I want to thank you for all the work, btw, that you have done on the torture issue, and on behalf of CCR. I very much appreciated your devastating analysis of the torture memos in the new book. I hope you forgive the rather lengthy comment.
I’m not familiar with the precise arguments the Obama administration is using to fight release of the remaining documents. I do think they deserve commendation for releasing these memos — even if it was in the face of an FOIA lawsuit. One comment I’ve had from overseas lawyers is that in their countries, these memos would NEVER have seen the light of day. The principal of the right to know is an incredibly important one. But now that we know, the question is what should we DO?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJnQbPtgMAU&feature=player_embedded#
The Spanish criminal investigation is very interesting. It focuses on the lawyers. The Spanish judge has put formal questions to Atty General Holder. This is the same judge who indicted Gen. Augusto Pinochet for, among other things, torture. Under the Spanish civil law system, as I understand it, there is no such thing as prosecutorial discretion. The decision to bring charges is made by a judge, not an executive official, and based solely on legal considerations. If the Spanish judge indicts, that will put pressure on the US to respond, perhaps by launching its own investigation.
I think that investigation is still ongoing.
Prof Cole, have you had any conversations in recent months with members of Congress about your book and/or the work you have done on torture in general? If so, can you discuss the substance of the discussions?
great questions/comments.
http://rainbowwarrior2005.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/spanish-judge-resumes-torture-case-against-six-senior-bush-lawyers/
The problem I have seen with the Spanish effort is that the two judges are viewed as rogue by the official government and will not be supported. It appears that neither subpoenas, letters rogatory, not enforcement of any resultant judgment will be supported and executed by the actual government (can you imagine the blowback by the US government if they tried?). Without this type of support (execution on any of these requires specific diplomatic protocols govt to govt) I just don’t see how much will come from it. The one hope seems to be in building public awareness and pressure here, but Americans have an annoying tendency to withdraw into themselves when accused by foreigners.
Has there ever been a thorough investigation into the reported suicide of soldier Alyssa Peterson who was exposed to the horror of the torture program?
I think we need an Empathy or Ethics Czar to work with the Attorney General as an ombudsman and advocate for morality AND accountability.
Thanks Jeff. You evidently have studied this more closely than I have! But I think you are right that if the CIA lawyers provided false or misleading information to the OLC, that would certainly implicate them in the process. One of the points I make in the book is that time and time again, OLC “reasons” that various tactics do not cause severe or prolonged harm because the CIA told it so. This seems remarkably circular, and for that reason alone problematic. It was also of course deeply problematic to draw conclusions about the effects of real abuse by looking at what happens when soldiers engage in play-acting abuse in SERE training. But if the CIA also failed to provide full information, they could also be held accountable. I think the role of the CIA lawyers is one of the many things that still needs further investigation — and would be an appropriate subject for an Independent Commission to look into.
In all of this business, the focus is on the lawyers, and what can be done, and the Obama Administration’s response. But have you formed an opinion about the impact of our becoming a nation of torturers on the American psyche, our ethos? And what sense do you have about how many Americans actually support what we did?
Unfortunately no. I was out of the country till late August, and since then Congress’s focus has been elsewhere.
I have read that only 1 out of 4 American citizens is against torture of ANY kind. That is truly sobering.
Prof. Cole – Are you doing a book tour with the Torture Memos?
Do you find much interest ammong the usual reviewers and interviewers or are they studiously ignoring it?
For example, C-Span? Or maybe Jon Stewart? Politics and Prose bookstore?
thank you. Just thought I’d query you about that.
Americans think what they’re told to think.
It’s important, therefore, for leaders to say and do the right things.
John F. Kennedy knew this.
The only part Obama understands is saying the right things.
I know that most of this discussion appears to be about law, but for me so much of the discussion in the popular culture has to do with ethics and morality and marketing.
Why marketing? Because of how it was sold. How certain words were redefined to mean things that they were not. Specifically waterboarding (which already sounds like a sport you do on a beach in Hawaii).
What I’m curious about is your opinion of how the views of the lawyers were used to help sell a pre-created marketing opinion or definition.
“As in, “We can’t sell torture but we can sell, ‘blowing off steam’.” We can’t sell blood and “the rack” and physical violence but we can sell psychological violence. Focus on definitions that pulls these actions away from “classic torture” and into high-tech interrogation.”
This is of course the ultimate question. As John McCain said, “it’s about who we are.” I think that question is still unresolved. Polls say all kinds of things, depending on how the questions are asked. Americans like Jack Bauer it seems. But I also think it telling that every time some aspect of this has become public, the government has had to retreat — Abu Ghraib, the August 2002 torture memo, the view that the prohibition on cruel inhuman and degrading treatment does not apply to foreigners in CIA black sites, etc. The fact that the policy could not be sustained when made public is encouraging.
But I think the real question is how we respond now. Do we complacently sit back and let bygones be bygones, leaving torture and cruel treatment as policy options? Or do we reach some consensus that what happened was not just a policy difference, but wrong, shameful, and illegal? And this turns on the extent to which we demand justice and accountability, and keep this in the public eye, and keep protesting those responsible for authorizing it, etc.
In other words, our character, as McCain put it, is a dynamic thing, and that is ultimately what is at stake here, more than whether a few individuals get disciplined or prosecuted. That’s why I think the best way forward is a blue-ribbon Independent Commission that would have the authority to investigate fully and the stature to condemn what is concemnable.
It is sobering. It seems to me that the people who remain loyal to the Bush Administration they elected are put in a terrible bind by this issue. They’re being asked to “support” torture as a way of being true to their conservatism. Dissent isn’t a big part of the modern conservative ethic.
I am doing a tour of sorts. You can see the details on the book’s website, http://www.torturememos.net.
I did a book event at Georgetown this week that was filmed by C-SPAN Book TV.
There is related press, reviews, etc., on the website. Thanks for asking!
Professor Cole, what are your thoughts on the intersection of the CATs, the 5th, 8th and 14th Amendments and 18 USC 2340-2341 as related to the memos? Justice Scalia has scoffed at the application of the Amendments to the detainees under the guise that they have not been convicted yet; contra to Scalia, there is a long and established set of decisions that state this is complete bunk. It appears to me that Bradbury was awfully cavalier in the way he handled these concepts. I do not think sophistry even comes close, not in my opinion anyway. It strikes me there is a festering hole here you could drive a prosecutorial Mack truck through.
I remember reading about in The Bush Tragedy how Bush when a frat boy at Yale pushed to actually “brand” with a branding iron new pledges to the fraternity. Yale Daily News found out and there was a controversy, but then young Bush was allowed to brand “only” with lit cigarettes and burning coat hangers. I find this haunting and also part of the “boys will be boys” toxic male bonding cult secret society behavior.
Also, how far back does denied but actual torture go? The Geneva Convention is a ratified congressional document. Shouldn’t breaking that contract make this horrendous crime immediately prosecutable?
Cronyism will stonewall true accountability for these monstrosites.
Thanks, bmaz. Appreciate it. And thanks for hosting today’s discussion.
Apparently not — although, again, it is telling that John McCain led the charge on the issue of cruel inhuman and degrading treatment applying to all human beings, and got almost all of the Senators to join him.
But more to the point, I don’t see many politicians of either stripe calling for accountability. As I said earlier, the easy thing to do here — for both parties — is to do nothing.
Not just the Right. Look at Chuck Todd with Greenwald defending Obama’s … just face the future and skate over the horrifying crimes.
There is American cronyship … like to a team…. in fact, once Bush was out, the stridency and indignation of the left really died down. Personality (Obama) overrides principles too often.
Welcome, Prof. Cole!
If I’m not mistaken, thanks are also due to the ACLU for fighting to get these docs released.
Professor Cole,
Have you seen the the article by Andrew Sullivan in the Atlantic calling on President Bush to follow the example of Reagan, who ordered an investigation in the wake of Iran-Contra?
Thanks, David.
I know Marcy Wheeler did a post a few days back strongly suggesting that the release of the OPR report was being held back, in part, due to the stalling of CIA attorneys.
It boggles my mind that such a report could be held up, passing deadline after deadline, while those subject to investigation vet the release of details in the report that relate to them.
It appears to me that there are two key pieces of evidence that are still classified, and in fact, only recently known to us. One is the CIA’s Office of Technical Services (OTS) report to the OLC, with its representations on the effects and “safety” of the proposed techniques. OLC says it relied “in substantial part” on this OTS document in writing the August Bybee memo to Rizzo (per the CIA OIG report). Apparently, from my own questioning, ACLU was unaware of the existence of this memo until recently. It would be the Ur-Torture Memo, and a huge missing piece in the documentation of the government’s torture program.
Do you David (or you bmaz) have any indications just how far the Senate Intelligence committee has taken or intends to take this investigation? How will we ever get the Independent Commission to which you allude? I believe the constitution of such a commission should be very wide, and include representatives of key human rights and civil liberties organizations. Would you agree with that?
Maybe you would chair such a commission! ;-)
A great answer. It’s not revenge that’s on the table. It’s not really even retribution. It’s a confrontation with the truth, painful or not, that shapes the direction of America.
Thanks for collecting all these pieces in one place [chasing down emptywheel's links can be exhausting at times].
I address this in detail in the book, because I think it is central. The debate too often focuses only on torture. But we are bound by international law, made part of our law, not to inflict “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment” on anyone under our control. And we are bound by the Geneva Conventions to treat all detainees “humanely.” These are much lower thresholds than the torture threshold of “severe physical pain” or “prolonged mental harm.” Yet Bradbury in his memos concluded, amazingly, that none of these tactics violated even these prohibitions!
In my view, the CID ban, which has been interpreted in the US to ban conduct that “shocks the conscience,” was plainly violated. The courts have never upheld ANY deliberate infliction of pain to coerce statements out of a detainee. That’s the proper line — no deliberate infliction of pain. Yet the memos argue that if there’s a good enough reason for the pain, we can inflict it. There is absolutely no support in the law for that view. As I argue in the book, the treatment of this issue is probably the most damning piece of evidence against the lawyers — and it has received far too little attention.
Yes. When are you going to be on Fox and Friends, the Sean Hannity show or The Rush Limbaugh show?
I’m quite serious. It would be something that you would need to prepare for because Hannity doesn’t respond well to reasoned arguments.The debate about torture on the right is taking place on these shows.
One of the things that I’ve been trying to do is get audio from the major religious groups to condemn these hosts for their views on torture which are counter to the views of their own religions. Hannity is probably the more prominent Catholic in American who comes out support of torture. I’ve contacted several members of the official Catholic Church to get them on record challenging his views and I have been shut down. As I said, the debate about torture is taking place on these shows and people or organizations that are the supposed source of moral guidance are not challenging them.
It talked to one group and they specifically said that they didn’t not want to challenge anyone on the right like Hannity.
Prof. Cole -
Please don’t take this as snark or sarcasm – very sincerely, what was your goal in putting this book on the memos together?
What I mean is, do you think having it all published, in one place, will push people who’ve managed to ignore the issue to demand action?
(and yes, like 1boringoldman said, it’s great for us who’ve been following all along to have them collected.) I just worry that those who’ve deliberately ignored it all, media and public alike, will continue to do so.
Thanks for that. Absolutely thanks are owed to the ACLU. Without their FOIA lawsuit around the torture documents, we wouldn’t know half of what we now know.
Great article by Andrew Sullivan. If folks haven’t yet read it, READ IT!
Actually, JFK and Obama are pretty similar in many ways. JFK gave us the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the Vietnam escalation, though he did redeem himself later with the Test-Ban Treaty.
Fox hasn’t invited me since I outed Bill O’Reilly while on his show about his conscious andee deliberate skewing of a quote from the 9/11 Commission. I actually sat and heard him retape his intro to take out the quote and retape with a misleading paraphrase. When I called him out on it, he swore at me, and swore I’d never be on his show again. You can read about it on thenation.com. Title of the piece is My First and Last Time with Bill O’Reilly. Haven’t been on Fox since!
Check out Prof. Cole’s website calendar – this week at Cooper Union, a program co-sponsored by ACLU. Just wish I could get to that.
How has the torture scandal impacted the CIA right now? Its functioning, its reputation, its duties?
I understand former CIA people and CIA people do want there to be accountability. Not cover up.
The Justice Dept. is implicated in what happened so the justic department should not be investigating itself.
And Obama wants support of his CIA and FBI, so he walks the tightrope of new boss cronyism and placation.
David,
I’m wondering if you can comment on why Yoo, et al. added the “necessity” and “self-defense” arguments to the Bybee I memo. It seems very tacked on, and a sort of last ditch effort to say that no matter what crimes were committed, the belief or intention that it was done to protect the nation trumps all. In fact, as I read those arguments, they could provide rationale to almost any kind of war crime, from torture, to medical experimentation on prisoners, to murder, or even genocide.
It’s quite scary to read that portion of the memos, but that’s to a non-lawyer. Perhaps you read them and only chuckled, as they appear, per your argument in your commentary to the memos that these proposals had little or no backing in established law.
PW,
They are different in many ways, perhaps lost to American history.
JFK took on the power structure. And was killed therefore.
Obama does not take on the power structure.
My sense is that we must continue to push for accountability, and the best way to do that is to put the evidence out there so that it is accessible, and to explain it in a way that non-lawyers can understand. So yes, my hope is that this will lead more people to familiarize themselves with what is surely one of the darkest chapters in our legal history, and that if they do, they may join the struggle for accountability. It is a struggle, and we all must do what we can do. But my sincere hope is that this will make the issue accessible to many who have not yet confronted it. It’s easy to ignore. But when you actually look at these memos, it is hard to be complacent.
Yes, for those of you in New York. Reckoning With Torture, at Cooper Union on Tuesday, Oct. 13. Readings from the torture documents from such authors as Don DeLillo and Art Spiegelman, an installation by Jenny Holzer, etc. Another effort to get the word out a little more widely about the facts.
Take a look at Andrew Sullivan’s article here.
Honestly, I didn’t think it was so great. Sullivan tells Bush:
My thoughts about Sullivan’s suggestion include:
I really didn’t like Sullivan’s premises or conclusions at all, as I explained here.
In light of that response (which I knew was coming from reading your book commentary), and in light of someone above’s question, how IS all this going to get heard? I know from the book you seem to envision some type of commission. Do you really think it is possible? Who and how will that push be led?
No, can’t say I chuckled. The necessity and self-defense arguments are extremely chilling and revealing. They essentially argue that anything goes when one is trying to defend the nation. That appears generally to have been the Bush view, but it’s striking to see it in black and white. And of course, the governnment is generally prosecuting criminals, not defending, so it generally takes a very narrow and parsimonious view of these defenses. Yet here, where it was defense of their own that was at stake, they offered theories of these defenses far more liberal than I’ve ever seen a criminal defense lawyer advance!
Lawyers cherry pick which laws to obey and which not. And crazed opportunistic neocon hysteria of 9/11 gave lawyers, encouraged lawyers, to do so much of such cherry picking. It happened and is happening with the banksters. It happens with the militarists and contractors. The corporatists. Lack of oversight. We have the laws. We just need oversight, monitoring and prosecution.
And a bribed Congress and President are willing to waive and PROTECT THE REALLY BAD GUYS, the architects of these policies, too much amorally which betrays humanity nationally and internationally. CYA cronyism.
Common good, public trust, state of the peasantry … not a priority. And media disguises or disinforms.
Ha, you answered your own question there Jeff.
there you have it.
man, I keep getting to these incredible book salons too late
david, I am wondering if you considered looking into the “less then one percent” of the cia who were on board with the torture programs, or cheney’s “team b”
most of the cia knew this program would yield less data and and creaet more incidents then they could possibly resolve and in my mind these are cheney’s cronies, “team b” left overs (and now left behinds)
My own view is that an independent commission is the best route, for the moment. We still don’t have all the facts. And we need them to make informed judgments about what form of accountability is appropriate. I think without more, prosecutions are exceedingly unlikely, so that seems at least for now a dead end. A commission would allow us to accomplish somme form of accountability, and would not foreclose further measures of accountability, should the facts warrant.
Wow. Great story. I’ve read, Danners, “Torture and the Truth” Sands’ Torture Team” and have followed this issue for years.
One of the areas I’m mostly interested in is how torture is being sold to the American public. The tv show “24″ and it’s perfect use of the ticking time bomb scenario over and over again is the most troubling to me.
People like Jack Bauer because his torture is written to always work.
I also have finally figured out one reason why the TTB scenario works for people on the right AND the left. The scenario puts you in the position of saving the world. It doesn’t put you in the position of the person being tortured. The identification with the torturer is key to it’s success.
I’ve been thinking about ways to defeat this scenario in conversations with right wing pundits. One way is to go meta and discuss the premise of the scenario. And then flip the premise where they are the person being tortured. But I think that we need more liberals trained in discussing how to defeat these scenarios in popular culture and in private discussions for the 1-4 Americans who are pro-torture. (80 percent of those pro-torture people are Christians, how messed up is that?)
Why would statutes of limitation prohibit state bar committees from reviewing licenses to practice? Those limit the state’s ability to exact criminal penalties – and assume that the time lapses while the behavior complained of is open and notorious – not the bar authority’s ability to exact consequences for behavior that brings the bar into disrepute. If the conduct is reprehensible, can they not suspend or revoke a license irrespective of the state’s ability to fine or throw a once-practicing lawyer in jail?
David, it is a shame one of our regular commenters and long time participants at Emptywheel, Mary, was not able to be here. She is absolutely killer on this stuff. Here is another question she left, and a very good one:
David,
I consider the value of your work and the work of others to call attention to the line of No Deliberate Infliction of Pain.
Tasers kill.
Rubber bullets kill.
Thugs/Airport Security kill.
They also stun, degrade and shock the conscience.
Do you have thoughts about how the culture of torture has permeated police forces?
While a commission may be difficult to envision right now, given Obama’s opposition, I think it is the least we must do. And as further facts come out, and as further folks get involved in a campaign to press for accountability, I think it may become thinkable. The human rights groups are pressing for it. I think we need to try to build a grassroots campaign around it — maybe called “Who We Are.”
As I write in the book, the struggle for accountability for the internment of 120,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans took 40 years. We have to take the long view.
Has there been any kind of collection of the victims of torture who were actually released and found innocent.
Cheney’s disinformation campaign about Gitmo having the worst of the worst is insulting and obscene!
I am against torture of any kind, but those bozos rounded up innocent people, caged them, tortured them, some still caged and probably innocent, and that is an outrage that there are still lying and having lapdog media respectfully listen to those lies. And those wrongfully tortured who are guilty … what is happening with them. When Obama made that dismissive joke about Leave it to the Uighurs (spelling?) it absolutely chilled me.
Has any formal acknowledgement by Obama been made about the wrongness of the torture to those victims?
Lawyers cherry pick which laws to obey and which not.”
Actually, of course, we’re not supposed to. One of the earliest principles of legal writing I was taught was to never ignore any case law or facts damaging to your case. If you can, distinguish them from your own case…and if you can’t, well you might advise your client to settle/plead.
That’s one reason lawyers were so horrified and astounded to find Yoo ignoring the Youngstown case.
You are absolutely right. But should one of the potential criminals, who may be found to have been directly involved in the crimes by having authorized them, be the one to come out to demand that there be an independent commission? Is he the only one who can do it, as Sullivan suggests?
I suppose I take exception to Sullivan’s conclusion that only Bush can fix the problem by being the one to come out and demand it.
I was also bothered by other things in Sullivan’s logic, but his conclusion really irked me!
Wow. Great story. I’ve read, Danners, “Torture and the Truth” Sands’ Torture Team” and have followed this issue for years.
One of the areas I’m mostly interested in is how torture is being sold to the American public. The tv show “24″ and it’s perfect use of the ticking time bomb scenario over and over again is the most troubling to me.
People like Jack Bauer because his torture is written to always work.
I also have finally figured out one reason why the TTB scenario works for people on the right AND the left. The scenario puts you in the position of saving the world. It doesn’t put you in the position of the person being tortured. The identification with the torturer is key to it’s success.
I’ve been thinking about ways to defeat this scenario in conversations with right wing pundits. One way is to go meta and discuss the premise of the scenario. And then flip the premise where they are the person being tortured. But I think that we need more liberals trained in discussing how to defeat these scenarios in popular culture and in private discussions for the 1-4 Americans who are pro-torture. (80 percent of those pro-torture people are Christians, how messed up is that?)
Exactly right! Tasers, in particular, seem to encourage unnecessary uses of excessive force to control situations that could and should be controlled by other means.
There is much to be said about the TTB. That it virtually never arises. That it is premised on our knowing things we generally cannot know — that this person placed the bomb, that there is no other way to locate it, that he will talk if we torture him, that he won’t mislead (knowing that delay is on his side), etc.
Also worth noting thata the CIA IG report found no evidence of any TTBs thwarted by the CIA program, nor has Bush or Cheney ever cited one.
If someone truly thinks torture will avert a TTB, he should be willing to violate the law, and argue for leniency later.
Finally, the TTB has been out there as a hypothetical for years — yet we, and virtually every other nation in the world, signed on to a treaty that explicitly says “no exceptional circumstances justify torture.”
They showed the movie the “Great Escape” last night on public tv. Wow, those pows had a walk in the park compared to Camp Gitmo and Abu Grahib. Wonder how James Garner and Steve McQueen heros would have fared IRL and with American covert CIA rules.
The biggest test for my morality on torture is if asked thumbs up or thumbs down on whether the Torture Program architects get a taste of what they arranged for others in terms of being tortured themselves. I have to say no, but I want to say YES! But their sociopathology, they left conscience-ness a long time ago. I want them to know the hell they architected. The heinousness of what they perpetrated.
But what profound psychological damage on the victims and the direct victimizers of the torture. And on us as a nation enabling it now … not demanding accountability.
As with other agencies, the CIA is not off one mind on this, to be sure. The only people being investigated thus far, however, are line CIA agents who reportedly went beyond the brutality authorized by the OLC. But if that is the end of the matter, the CIA will be justified in feeling that it has been scapegoated — much like the low-level Abu Ghraib defendants.
The bottom line is that we need to investigate all who were complicit, but especially those who authorized brutality in the first place.
Geneva Convention.
The right-wing supporters of torture never seem to get the fact that when we violate it, our people will suffer the consequences.
Most people who have served in the military (that I’ve heard from) do get it. Which of course is (partly) why the biggest supporters of torture are folks like Cheney and Feith, Limbaugh and Hannity.
These lawyers knew or should have known that the use of these “enhanced interrogation” methods would render these prisoners unable to be prosecuted in a court of law. Was this subject discussed or do you suspect this to be a part of the redacted portions? Was human experimentation a part of this in your opinion as alluded to above. I guess the point I am trying to make is does it seem to you that they are covering up actual crimes that we know nothing about as of yet or trying to actually preserve national security information that could help future enemies if disclosed. The whole process seems disingenuous. Does Obama’s DOJ know the whole truth now?
Good points.
And re the UN, say, when US minimizes Geneva Convention, as does Israel, that certainly sends the message internationally. The big nation siblings set precedents. Also, inspire REVENGE and HATE and … radicalism… and terrorism. The creators of the terrorism they protest they are fighting by becoming terroristic themselves.
You’re right that of course Bush is not the only one who can demand an investigation. I take that to be a rhetorical flourish by Sullivan. He can’t really expect Bush to respond. But it does point the finger where ultimate responsibility lies, and it makes a compelling case that we need accountability. To me, that is the bottom line. The form it takes is, at least at this point, when no accountability is even contemplated, less important.
100 inadvertent deaths from torture? And doctors were present or were they? And the torturers were given, in some cases I heard, like a two or three week period of training.
It numbs the mind the outrageousness of all this. And the secrecy wasn’t all that secret, right? The FBI had a bad feeling about what the CIA was doing.
And Cheney practically had an office at CIA headquarters that bastard.
precisely. And why some of the biggest opponents of all this came from the military, including Alberto Mora, General Counsel of the Navy, who essentiallyh forced Rumsfeld to rescind the torture policy at Gtmo.
Is that ONE Abu Ghraib guard still the only one incarcerated for the travesty over there? Rumsfeld “bad apple” theory, the real worms are really being recognized at long last, who hide behind others serving them. But where is the accountability? Does it have to be so glacial legally in terms of time? Stonewalling brings time for new fresh hells to distract from the carrying out of justice!!!!
Your title reminds me of the phrase, “the unremembered unforgotten” that’s used in the literature on psychological trauma. I wonder if that same thing may be true in the group psyche. This business of America torturing prisoners is rarely brought up by the left and almost never by the right. It’s the kind of thing we don’t want to think about.
In that regard, it’s like the WMDs that never materialized, or the Iraq/al Qaeda ties that never existed. After the fact, the Invasion of Iraq became something different from how it started. Likewise, the Torture Program is highly suspect as more than a search for information about al Qaeda’s plans. There’s a lot that suggests that getting detainees to confirm Hussein/Osama ties to justify the war was a motive eg the testimony of Major Burney.
I wonder if the entirety of the events from 9/11 up past the Valerie Plame incident aren’t in some collective “unremembered but unforgotten” realm of our collective mind. America has been pretty crazy for the last however long. Traumatized people don’t want to remember, even though it is their only way “out.” Perhaps the resistance to dealing with that period after 9/11 has to be overcome for the mind of America to move out of these doldrums.
In San Francisco the hosts at KSFO have been proudly pro-torture for years
Brian Sussman from 2005, ‘You know me, I’m pro-torture”. They have sick fantasies about torturing people. (audio wma)
Sussman from 2005 talking about cutting off the finger then the penis of a Iraqi.(audio wma)
Sussman from 2009 talking about blowing off the kneecaps of someone during an interrogation. (audio wma)
Torture jokes. Lee Rodgers and Melanie Morgan joking about waterboarding employees of rival station KGO from last Thursday, April 23, 2009.
Audio wma Audio mp3
There are the ways that the people on the right talk about torture. The are for it.
What about the “genocide” of the Iraqis. I mean, we are talking about over a million people killed by us, right?
I may have missed it if you’ve already answered this question, but do you expect there to be an independent investigation and, if so, do you think the investigators will be able to go where the facts lead, even if they lead to Rumsfeld, Cheney and/or Bush?
We don’t know what we don’t know, as Rumsfeld said. Again, that’s precisely why we need a commission.
As to whether they knew this would complicate prosecutions — how could they not? But the mantra was prevent, prevent, prevent — and part of that was a dismissal of reliance on criminal prosecution. That was ridiculously short-sighted, as should be evident now.
I also think they thought they could rig the military commissions to allow them to rely on this evidence secretly. But I think that has been thwarted, at least thus far.
We will pay in so many ways for this experiment — in foregone prosecutions of guilty criminals, in our standing in the world, in the treatment our troops are exposed to in the next war, in our understanding of ourselves.
As I wrote here, two convicted at Abu Ghraib are now filing appeals of their convictions. It appears that we can actually provide due process when we prosecute those guilty of torture, and yet many of the victims still are subject to military commissions, where due process is non-existent.
David, on the issue of warrantless wiretapping, we have noticed that Obama has not only gone back on his word as to accountability, but is additionally actively working to enshrine the illegality of the Bush program into formal US law (we have been very hot on dissecting the PATRIOT renewal, Section 215 and NSL abuses lately). It has been a remarkable about face for Mr. Obama. Do you get the sense at all that the same is going on, albeit it more quietly, with respect to torture – i.e it is not just that he doesn’t want to look back, but that he is also interested in preserving the systematic abuses?
As we come to the end of this Book Salon,
David, Thank you for stopping by the Lake today and spending the afternoon discussing your new book with us and the torture memos.
Bmaz, Thank you very much for Hosting this great Book Salon.
If you haven’t bought David’s book yet, here is a link.
Thanks all.
Thanks, Jim!
Much as I hate to say it, thos low level Abu Ghraib convictions should be set aside immediately. If I were their lawyer, I would be screaming.
Do you think that the way detainees were treated at Gtmo is part of the reason why President Obama has had such a hard time closing it? I have that impression and I often wonder why that argument isn’t presented when those on the right mock Obama for not having been able to close Gtmo as easily/quickly as he thought he would.
Thanks, David! Very profound and consciousness-raising!
Forgive me if this had been addressed, I cam late and have not read all the comments… Why are not the “torturers” themselves not held accountable, ie everyone who participated in or had knowledge of torture? Why are they not coming forward with a request for immunity to tell what they know about what went on? Why is is so hard to get accountability on this at any level?
In my opinion, the main problem in getting accountability and a real, open investigation is that once you let that genie out of the bag, the issue of complicity in torture starts to billow out, across multiple administrations and government bureaucracies. In particular, the CIA and portions of the military are heavily implicated. This won’t be just Dick Cheney and the reprehensible David Addington. It won’t be just the OLC and CIA lawyers. There are generals, and professors, and senators and congressmen, leading authorities, corporate leaders, and a coterie of self-professed “warriors” that may have no intention of going down without a fight. (Think the Algerian generals revolt against DeGaulle in April 1961.)
The perpetrators have position and status throughout American ruling circles and “high society.” The torture issue — so clear cut, so morally absolute — cuts to the heart of much that is rotten in U.S. society, and if it is not extirpated, then the rot will further fester, and what we experienced from 2002-2008 will not be understood as an aberration, but as a past that was prologue to something far worse and destructive than what we have seen thus far.
We don’t have 40 years to wait on this, either. Not that I think you meant that so concretely. But I do think the time frame I have in mind is something that goes from 2012-16, as a limiting end for when such accountability must take place. It will be painful, and wrenching to the society. In fact, I think that’s part of the reason for the popular lassitude on the subject. I think the average person knows that when we really begin taking this on, if it’s not to be another cover-up, then the impact upon society and on our individual lives will be stressful.
Thank you so much, David. Please know that the your efforts are very important to and appreciated by many of us.
That’s probably close to the number who oppose the death penalty in all cases (even for mass murdering child-sex abusers). Those numbers accepted, it doesn’t foreclose upon greatly reducing the situations where torture (or the death penalty) is considered as something to be practiced. The Bush Administration moved the goalposts way to the other end of the field, and have likely been a major reason the number isn’t something like 50-50. Once it’s near there you have the chance to ban it entirely.
Ditto on the thanks to Professor Cole.
And folks, BUY HIS BOOK! It is a great resource for having the memos all in one place, but David’s analysis is simply superb.
How about a grand jury instead of a commission?
It seems to me that using the established legal procedures to rein in unchecked executive grabs at authority would be a fitting approach.
Professor Cole,
Thank you so much for graciously spending so much time with us discussing your book, the torture memos, and what we should be thinking about going forward.
100 died from being “enhanced interrogated to death” doesn’t sound as bad as
100 died from being tortured to death.
Mark Danner in his book Torture and the Truth included the Taguba Report and the Schlesigner report where at the time they had marked 5 our of 28 dead as death because of torture. These were the Army’s own reports. There were hundreds of people involved in these (we have photo to prove it) but we are still focusing on those ‘bad apples’ Danner mentioned that the ‘bad apples’ theory of torture is one used by many regimes that have been caught torturing.
These Law People are all experimenting.
And they’re killing people.
And if they don’t kill them
They truamatize them.
Thanks for those thoughts.
Well, we are pretty good at forgetting. That, of course, is not peculiar to Americans, but a part of human nature. But that is why we must speak out and speak up, to insist that we remember, and that the legacy of this era be, like the legacy of the Japanese internment, be understood to reflect a grave wrong that must be remembered and cannnot be repeated.
One encouraging fact in this regard. The UK responded to the IRA in the early years is ways very analogous to our response to Al Qaeda. They locked up lots of suspects without charges, and then authoriized physical brutality to interrogate them. Their actions were held illegal by the European Court of Human Rights in its first ever opinion. Today it is widely accepted in the UK that torture is never justified, and that it is likely to be counterproductive from a security vantage point. (This is not to say that the UK has not had its own problems with complicitty, turing a blind eye to torture, etc.). But at the level of public discourse, torture is generally understood to be off the table — and for good. The UK learned from its mistakes. The question is whether we can learn from ours. That, in the end, is why I wrote the book. And that, nos that it’s 7 PM, has to be my last word. I hope you’ll get the book, and give it to friends who might be persuaded to join the cause of truth and accountability. Thanks!!
Book website again is http://www.torturememos.net.
Someone on Fox News was so upset about the torture outrage on the Left he said there was a “Spanish Inquisition” starting against the Bush Cabal… and I think it was Ray McGovern who said the Fox Newser was blind to the IRONY of what he had said.
Great point and question, Jim.
So we got that argument from the top and the “we were just following orders” from the bottom … and the rest of us in the country are just the “good Germans”. Wow.
As you say our troops will be left open for similar treatment. What about our new reliance on private contractors. Wasn’t the fact that these “enemy combatants” were not part of an organized and legitimate army the very excuse used to deny them protection under the Geneva Conventions? Aren’t these contractors now themselves “enemy combatants” themselves and how can our country justify the apparent contradiction? All this should have been discussed by these lawyers in making a decision to torture.
Inquisition against torturers? Sounds good. Let’s use some enhanced interrogation techniques on Dick Cheney so we can get the most reliable information about what really happened (…wow, even as a joke that sounds horrible and immoral). What happened should be taken very seriously and should not be forgotten.
well said.
thanks bmaz… great questions and intro.
Darn to late.
Thank you Mr. Cole
Thanks David and bmaz! Very interesting reading.
To those out there who think they can just read the torture memos online…. I know I found myself able to think about the memos in a more coherent fashion in book format. David and his publishers have done a great service publishing these memos, much as Mark Danner and his publishers did a while back when they published The Torture Papers.
And while we’re out it, don’t forget that ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights and Physicians for Human Rights are out on the front lines of the fight for accountability, and they deserve your material support. Just sayin’…
yes. wieder nie — “never again” — I saw that “wieder nie” written years ago outside the concentration camp museum at Dachua with a tiny pot of violets next to it. “wieder nie” … never again. And if not addressed … and acknowledged and amended it will happen again and again and again.
You know when I bring up to people how the Catholic Church should come out and condemn folks like Hannity for his support of torture they say, ‘What about the Spanish Inquisition?” or “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!” (quoting from Monty Python from over 30 years ago). The Catholic Church is against Torture, the current Pope has said so yet again.
In the book Torture, Religious Ethics And National Security, the priest who wrote it said that Catholics have even a greater obligation to come out against torture because of their previous sin of using it.
Yes, they deserve our gratitude and support.
Join the ACLU and make a donation here
Why should any American trust the American system of Justice in relation to the Torture/ Murder that has occurred?
I’m only for an International War Crimes Tribunal.This involves so many countries where torture, in our names, was carried out and the various countries where the victims came from.
How long should an innocent Torture Victim await Justice? Years or Tens of years?
It’s been said ” you’re doing it wrong if they die”. About 108 did die during questioning, so even in their minimalist definition they admit torture.
The only way forward is a complete purging of the virus, Torture/ Murder, thugs that thought up and carried out the orders.
Anything less is unacceptable to me personally , as an American,because I’m a constitutional extremist,
Yes, we became the “good Germans” when, after the end of the wars in Southeast Asia, after the murder of millions by the U.S., the torture of untold tens of thousands, and the defoliation of much of the countryside, accountability for the crimes of the U.S. government came to naught. Much of what we are experiencing in contemporary times can be traced to this terrible societal failure.
You’ll notice the time frame on this was short. When the Carter administration failed to hold the Vietnam War criminals to account, and “moved on,” we ended up with the Reagan administration, and… well, you know the rest of the story.
I find the “never forget” homily to be seriously hollow. It implies that traumatic memory is in and of itself sufficient. I would like to see this phrase replaced by another: “seek justice always.”
I had a bad reaction to Andrew Sullivan’s recent open letter in the Atlantic that I posted as a diary.
Part of my reaction was the result of the bad logical that I saw constantly during the years since 9/11, and even though Sullivan was essentially calling for an investigation I saw his logic as being exactly the same as that which caused the problems in the first place.
As I put it in my diary comments:
The events of 9/11 did not create a long war of ideas in which an invasion of Iraq should have played any part in the first place.
That was the result of framing the distinctions early – i.e. confusing the discussion and creating confusion in order to more easily manipulate – with terms like “with us or against us.”
Sullivan bases his entire intellectual edifice on such simplistic either/or premises, but it was exactly this kind of thinking that created the problem, which, as Sullivan puts it,
You’re either with us, or we’ll torture you…
[end selection from diary comment]
But the fact is that Prof Cole is right, as you are in your assertion that what’s important now is that what happened is addressed, acknowledged and amended.
Wieder nie — “Never again.”
Yes, and I am thinking the “sin of omission” in this country. Silence means consent.
You know I have been wearing my black armband since May and only one person has asked me what it stands for. But I wear it to remind myself that it is not okay for my country to commit such obscene acts … caging and torturing innocent people for years without serious acknowledgment, amends or restitution.
There was an old movie, A Gentlemen’s Agreement, with Gregory Peck and it was about anti-Semitism. And at one point a character calls out people who are uncomfortable when hearing prejudice and shift uncomfortably over a joke or some in your face bias but they don’t put it back in the speaker’s face that it is wrong and they won’t tolerate it.
Yes, I saw Michael Moore’s movie and he had some priests really coming out angrily at capitalism and it was good to see.
Skewering the Bible to justify atrocities economically and militarily is horrifying.
yes … appreciate what you are saying very much. Seek justice. It brings closure and is the ulitimate “teachable moment”. I wish Obama had been a part of the Viet Nam generation. I see a callowness in him. Intellectual awareness of history is not the same as the emotional and social sensibility of living through it.
Thanks for your comment. I didn’t mean my comment to come off — as I thought it did — as overly critical of you or Knoxville re the use of “Wieder nie.”
I think you are onto something important regarding Obama’s generational position. Somehow, we skipped the 60s/70s/Vietnam generation in the WH, unless you include GWB (ugh). That was the most politicized generation in modern U.S. history, and I don’t think Obama truly understands what he impact of that clusterfuck was on this country (not to mention upon the understanding of what U.S. power “stood for” by others around the world). I’d like to see someone ask Obama about Operation Phoenix, and I wouldn’t wonder if we didn’t see a Sarah Palin-like moment of obfuscation or deer in the headlights. Obama’s a smart guy, but you don’t know what you choose to ignore.
Wow… I love the diary. The thing about Bush and the chewing gum wrapper cracked me up. Want to go back and read more closely.
You know I read an article last night about how bin laden is probably dead but the Bush and Obama administrations don’t want it known most likely to justify militaristic imperialism. To justify to Americans why we are crossing into nations with our violence. He is the symbol to justify our corporate military agenda. One author compared bin laden’s aliveness to the Elvis sightings.
One wee correction – Bill Clinton is definitely VN era age group. Remember the “draft dodger?” slams at him?
I’m afraid, though, that we (the VN-era/baby boomers) are discredited with younger and older – it was being too young to have had to choose sides on VN that helped Obama get elected.
That does mean, of course, a certain amount of historical ignorance – but I think he knows more about the war and the time than his typical age-cohort.
Thanks, Jeff.
I went back to reading Scott Peck’s People of the Lie and Alice Miller books about trauma theory to try to wrap my own mind around what was happening. Peck goes deep into the MyLai massacre to appreciate moral deterioration and the power of group think. And the higher up you go, the exceptionalism and elitism … and people .. human lives become pawns in power games. And that elite group think power patriarchal clubbiness.
Even Madeline Allbright recently .. didn’t she say something very chilling .. I am blanking right now.
The Armenians are asking all these years for an acknowledgement of the truth.
And the Gaza War so incredibly minimized by an irrationally conservative led Israel and this country, which has no right to be so codepedent with them, just stepping in line. I feel Obama has betrayed the left in this country and the peacekeepers and populists in other countries. Like in Honduras, too.
And now we are supporting drug trafficking in Afghan leadership. Oy vey.
Better check your facts. Kennedy inherited the Bay of Pigs from the Eisenhower administration. He does get demerits for allowing himself to be roped into going ahead with it but he did learn a lesson from it and did hold the top officials of the CIA accountable (by firing them) and tried to put CIA covert operations under control of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Also, the Vietnam escalation did not begin under JFK. In fact, he had planned to remove even the advisers after his re-election in 1964 (which of course did not happen). LBJ is the one who agreed to the introduction of large scale combat troops and orchestrated the pathetically transparent Gulf of Tonkin incident to provide a fig leaf of justification.
Clinton! Talk about forgetting!
Actually, Bill Clinton did help facilitate some investigation of past crimes, in regards to the radiation experiments of earlier days, and it was during his term that much of the work of the JFK archives research was done (begun under a law signed by, of all people, GHWB).
My point about time passing and the need for investigations still stands, however. When Carter failed to press for accountability on Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia, and instead tried to position the U.S. as a “human rights” force for good, he achieved the shell of the latter, and left the husk of the former, which afterwards came back to haunt us in the form of Rumsfeld, Cheney, and other of the Nixon men. The Democratic Party’s failure to understand its role in the Vietnam debacle is the direct predecessor to its failure to stand up for clear antiwar goals today.
History does repeat itself in the most insidious ways doesn’t it?
Yes, and I wonder what vague player’s role I am cast in. That must be the point of what our lives are about. You don’t know until the reel ends if the movie is any good or not.