Prosecuting torture: 'Hard to believe' (says Alberto Gonzales)

Source: Chicago Trib

<snip>

During the opening round of questions, Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy asked Holder if he thought water-boarding - that simulation of drowning which the U.S. has used in some interrogations of captive "enemy combatants'' - is torture, noting that Alberto Gonzalez, Bush's final attorney general, and Gonzalez's replacement, Michael Mukasey, would never answer that question directly. "Yes," Holder said. "Water-boarding is torture."

Gonzales, in an interview airing on National Public Radio's Tell Me More today, voiced his concern about "Making a blanket pronouncement like that.'' He noted "the effect it may have... on the morale and the dedication of intelligence officials and lawyers throughout the administration."

Not to mention to fear of possible prosecutions that it raises.

"My reaction was very similar to General Mukasey's reaction, which was concern about making a pronouncement like that,'' Gonzales said, pointing to the "concern that would arise in the minds of intelligence officials and lawyers at the department, who all acted in good faith, working as hard as they can under very difficult circumstances, to give advice and make decisions to protect our country...

"I don't know whether or not, in making that statement, Mr. Holder had access to all of the opinions, all of the underlying documentation supporting the opinions'' that the Justice Department had issued on the question, he said - noting also "the threat that existed at the time these opinions were offered, and the opinions of the intelligence officials about their belief in a particular detainee having very important, valuable intelligence information that might save American lives.''

On the question of prosecuting officers who employed any of the "extreme tactics'' that the Bush administration has acknowledged, without admitting to any "torture'' of detainees: "I don't think that there's going to be a prosecution, quite frankly.'' Gonzales said. "Because again, these activities.... They were authorized, they were supported by legal opinions at the Department of Justice.''

Read more: http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/01/prosecuting_torture_hard_to_be.html

He is shaking in his shoes as to what Holders statement could mean to him.

that you could not just write a memo and reverse reality?
Only if bu$zaro world. Luckily the adults are back in control.
When are the trials? I want to get a front row seat.

the continual propoganda machine the GOP runs would have made sure the information got out there. Hell, I'm surprised they haven't just made something up to fax out to prove that they were "right"

under international law; and it was for the CRIME OF TORTURE America prosecuted US soldiers and Japanese soldiers for waterboarding.

OPIONIONS DON'T MEAN SHIT; "morale" don't mean shit.

Water-boarding is in fact of law TORTURE.

Surprising that he doesn't know this yet.

Well....we certainly charged the Japanese with war crimes for their use of waterboarding in WWII.

I guess definitions change depending on who is getting tortured.

Japanese who used Water Boarding were CONVICTED of TORTURE...
AND PUT TO DEATH !

level to be able to 'torture' and it's hacks like this who made the decision that it was legal.

There IS a reason this assclown can't find a job.

I hope I live to see the day when everyone involved in this obvious crime are held accountable fie their crimes.

Read this sentence and try not to cringe at its jarringly halting tempo:

During the opening round of questions, Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy asked Holder if he thought water-boarding - that simulation of drowning which the U.S. has used in some interrogations of captive "enemy combatants'' - is torture, noting that Alberto Gonzalez, Bush's final attorney general, and Gonzalez's replacement, Michael Mukasey, would never answer that question directly.

Like the subject matter weren't bothersome enough, yeah let's make it that much more difficult to read about.

It is torture and it is illegal no matter how many sycophantic DoJ opinions you have. Has Harvard revoked his law degree yet? This idiot needs to be disbarred.

He doesn't know "whether or not..... Mr. Holder had access to all of the opinions,.." Other than all the laws and treaties and international conventions the US has signed or joined stating w/o question that torture is illegal?

WTF is torturing in "good faith" anyway?

Whether the actions were "authorized" has very little to do with the question of whether they violated national and international law.

The problem is their oath wasn't to protect America though that is a side affect of following it. Their oath was to protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States, and you can't keep your oath by trashing it.

hes saying

1) all good, god fearing, repukliens yada yada
2) following orders (Nuremberg defense)
3) in reliance on AG opinions (good faith defense)

the problem is, the law was clearly established at the time that:
a) water-boarding was torture
b) torture was illegal

an order to torture cannot be followed in good faith
because it has been clearly established under US and
international law that such an order is illegal,

for the same reason such an order cannot be given
in good faith.

a supreme court opinion might change that,
but a lawyers opinion changes it not a whit.
not even an AG opinion.

and speaking of AG opinions used in this case...
why shouldn't they be considered aiding and abetting
war crimes.

round up the bunch of em, I say.

How nice of him... Torturers need to be understood and treated tenderly. Don't hurt their feelings. They'll get depressed.

:sarcasm:

we can't be running around willy-nilly hurting people's feelings now, can we?

which they swore to uphold.

It does not say protect and defend my lawyer's opinions.

"I don't know whether or not, in making that statement, Mr. Holder had access to all of the opinions, all of the underlying documentation supporting the opinions'' that the Justice Department had issued on the question, he said - noting also "the threat that existed at the time these opinions were offered, and the opinions of the intelligence officials about their belief in a particular detainee having very important, valuable intelligence information that might save American lives."

Underlying documentation supporting the opinions? He is so full of shit, and here we go again with the threat, ack, the TERRORISTS are coming, so we must torture now.

I want to see that vile piece of trash, the MCA 2006 repealed too, if not found unconstitutional first that is.

The Bush administration has kept all but a handful of documents behind their "executive privilege" firewall, unwilling to have an open and robust public debate, because they know they'd lose on the facts and the law. When a lawyer finds the facts are against him, he pounds the law. When the law is against him, he pounds the facts. When both the facts and the law are against him, he pounds the table.

Gonzales, table pounding for one.

bush/gonzales definition. I have seen reports that as many as 100 people may have died from heavy integration.

we stand together on this:

torture is illegal, a crime,
a grave and serious moral hazard and a crime.
and when it is done under color of law it is an abomination
of government too evil to accept, too repulsive to
condone. it cannot be allowed to occur, it cannot remain
uncorrected, it cannot be justified, it cannot go unpunished.
that is where we firmly stand. let no man dare say differently.

yet a question is 'what is torture'? a fair question.
yet some things are past discussion, they are settled. debate over.
so on this point we can also stand:

water-boarding is torture. however briefly done,
absent consent, water-boarding is torture.
THAT is our determination, and making it we stand with all history
behind us,and with no law anywhere at any time to the contrary.
this line we draw. let any man say differently at his peril.

and so the question is, what else is torture....
and whether, given that water-boarding is torture, anyone would
still imagine that techniques which inflict unnecessary pain
or place a prisoner's health in peril should ever be viewed
with any less repulse?

Having a huge debate where or not water boarding is torture. Other means of torture were used besides just water boarding. Sensory deprivation has got to be one of the worse. It will drive a person insane in a matter of days.

this so-called 'debate' that debases all mankind.

Let us join together in one voice, starting here,
starting now, to speak with one resolve.

"Distinguished gentleman of the congress,
hear now your master who declares to you:
this 'debate' is OVER."

Japanese military officers were tried, convicted and hanged for water-boarding during WWII. Rumsfeld, Gonzales et al. need to follow suit.

so he can prove it's just a fun little party trick.

torture is torture, the law says so and it does not change if a few lawyers say it is okay. the law is the law. what if some conservative lawyers said murder of democrats was okay? i guess to gonzales it would be okay. creeps, sick, criminal creeps.

Arrest this war criminal!

Quite a selective reality that man lives in.

It is clearly NOT his fault.

If you watched the hearings, you know that Alberto Gonzalez is not capable of recalling what he did yesterday.
He simply forgot that Torture is Illegal.

1. Waterboarding has been considered torture since the time of the Inquisitions. The USA prosecuted war criminals for that exact technique after WWII. It is described as torture and a war crime in the records of the Nuremburg Trials thus, under the "reasonable man test", there is no possible way a reasonable man could consider it to not be torture.

2. The defence of the legal memos is irrelevant as the memos merely constitute opinions. They do not change the facts outlined above, the law of the land or international law. A man, even a lawyer, may offer an opinion that black is white. That does not make it so.

3. The defence that the acts were legal under American law is likewise irrelevant. Firstly, everything the Nazis did was legal under German law. Secondly, under the US Constitution, treaties signed are considered to be the law of the land. Thirdly, the Geneva Conventions are clear that the provisions of the Conventions trump domestic law.

4. Given Gonzalez's description of the Conventions as "quant", it seems that adhering to the United States's legal obligations did not feature very highly in Gonzalez's priorities. Further, by the testimony of those who worked closely with the Bush Administration, Gonzalez's DoJ was less concerned with stating the law and more with providing the Bush Admin with legal cover for whatever they had already decided to do.

5. Given the above facts and the admitted complicity of the following, it seems certain that Gonzalez, Cheney, Bush, Yoo and Mukasey at least are guilty of either ordering teh commission of war crimes or conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by providing cover to same.

6. The only question concerns the legal liability of those who personally committed the acts. I confess that I am unclear if it is the option or obligation of a service member to refuse an illegal order.

This is the outline of the prosecution's case.