Intelligence Vets Back Torture Probe

Excellent. Thank you for sharing.

Question. Does it bother you that this investigation was launched as cover/white wash for Nancy Pelosi’s politicizing the CIA to cover her butt against her signing off on knowing “enhanced interrogation techniques (torture) was being conducted? That this really was an effort to get her off the hook?

You know, two wrongs don’t make a right.

The legal definition of torture.. which even Eric Holder holds to and agrees to, includes the intent to torture.

Are we to believe that the men (and perhaps women) of the CIA in post-9/11 environment, knowing that these barbarians had info about future operations, and whose mission was the prevention of them… did what they did only to fullfil some stupid desire to torture…

Is that what a few of you folks believe about our CIA?

This is from an article in Human Events about Congressional testimony back in the spring, that I watched…

Lundgren asked if it was the Justice Department’s position that Navy SEALS subjected to waterboarding as part of their training were being tortured.

Holder: No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them –

Lungren: So it’s the question of intent?

Holder: Intent is a huge part.

Lungren: So if the intent was to solicit information but not do permanent harm, how is that torture?

Holder: Well, it… uh… it… one has to look at… ah… it comes out to question of fact as one is determining the intention of the person who is administering the waterboarding. When the Communist Chinese did it, when the Japanese did it, when they did it in the Spanish Inquisition we knew then that was not a training exercise they were engaging in. They were doing it in a way that was violative of all of the statutes recognizing what torture is. What we are doing to our own troops to equip them to deal with any illegal act — that is not torture. We’re training our troops to deal with illegal acts?

Can you imagine this guy in combat?

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), a former judge, continued the “intent” line of questioning in an attempt to make some sense of the attorney general’s tortured logic.

Rep. Louie Gohmert: Whether waterboarding is torture you say is an issue of intent. If our officers when waterboarding have no intent and in fact knew absolutely they would do no permanent harm to the person being waterboarded, and the only intent was to get information to save people in this country then they would not have tortured under your definition, isn’t that correct?

Attorney General Eric Holder: No, not at all. Intent is a fact question, it’s a fact specific question.

Gohmert: So what kind of intent were you talking about?

Holder: Well, what is the intention of the person doing the act? Was it logical that the result of doing the act would have been to physically or mentally harm the person?

Gohmert: I said that in my question. The intent was not to physically harm them because they knew there would be no permanent harm — there would be discomfort but there would be no permanent harm — knew that for sure. So, is the intent, are you saying it’s in the mind of the one being water-boarded, whether they felt they had been tortured. Or is the intent in the mind of the actor who knows beyond any question that he is doing no permanent harm, that he is only making them think he’s doing harm.

Holder: The intent is in the person who would be charged with the offense, the actor, as determined by a trier of fact looking at all of the circumstances. That is ultimately how one decides whether or not that person has the requisite intent.

Additionaly:

Last spring, there was a case where a person residing in the US was fighting certain extradiction to Germany because of Germany’s allegation that the person was a German Workers National Socialist party collaborator (John Demjanjuk)

Demjanjuk was fighting being handed over to Germany because he claimed he faced certain torture in Germany.

The Dept of Justice filed a court brief in support of shipping him off, citing that even if Demjanjuk does get physically tortured, its’ not really torture because Germany does not intend to torture him for the sake of torturing him. That they have legitimate interests that may incidentally lead to his being tortured.. and thus he is not going to be tortured legally.

The Obama DOJ wrote (From a National Review article):

[T]orture is defined as “an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. . . . ” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2). Moreover, as has been explained by the Third Circuit, CAT requires “a showing of specific intent before the Court can make a finding that a petitioner will be tortured.” Pierre v. Attorney General, 528 F.3d 180, 189 (3d Cir. 2008) (en banc); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(5) (requiring that the act “be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering”); Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123, 139 (3d Cir. 2005) (“This is a ‘specific intent’ requirement and not a ‘general intent’ requirement” [citations omitted.]

An applicant for CAT protection therefore must establish that “his prospective torturer will have the motive or purpose” to torture him. Pierre, 528 F.3d at 189; Auguste, 395 F.3d at 153-54

(“The mere fact that the Haitian authorities have knowledge that severe pain and suffering may result by placing detainees in these conditions does not support a finding that the Haitian authorities intend to inflict severe pain and suffering. The difference goes to the heart of the distinction between general and specific intent.”)

The Justice Department brief goes on to elaborate that, even accepting for argument’s sake all his claims of anticipated physical abuse, Demjanjuk had failed to state a legal torture claim because he had not shown that German officials had deliberately created and maintained conditions that were specifically intended to cause severe pain and suffering:

“To the extent that German authorities may inadvertently cause Petitioner to experience any degree of discomfort during the course of a criminal prosecution or incarceration, this is not cognizable under CAT. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(5) (act causing unintended or unanticipated severity of pain and suffering not torture).”

I can understand the interest of former intelligence officials in pursuing an investigation into potentially abusive interrogation techniques used to elicit information with respect to terrorist activities past present and future.

However, I hope they realize that the motives of the administration are political in nature and to that extent they are likely to find that at the end of the day, the problems they perceive are not solved but merely politicized. This is not a defense of Bush.

You need only reflect on the proceedings of the Church committee to realize the downside risks involved. I for one do not feel comfortable entrusting such matters to the likes of Eric Holder given his representation of United Fruit, plus the way the Kevin Johnson matter was handled.

There is an old saying about prosecutors who are politically motivated: they could indict a ham sandwich. In addition to politicizing the matter, demoralizing out intelligence agencies, I am concerned about the possibility of a draconian set of procedures which serve to impede proper investigation in circumstances of extremis.

The further concern I have is that at the present time, the U.S. Government is almost certainly using the supercomputer to monitor conversations of American citizens to deal with the problem of domestic terrorism.

And while there may indeed be colorable justification to do this, it is in violation of the Fourth Amendment as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. The results of such investigations are therefore fruits of the poisonous tree and therefore inadmissable.

Nevertheless, they can be profered to a court in support of just cause, if someone will swear falsely by affadavit that the information was obtained through some other source. The fact that only 42% of these cases have led to convictions, and gag orders imposed further suggests this possibility.

If Obama can go after the prior Administration for violation of the Constitution for interrogation techniques which violate the 8th Amendment, then perforce a future Republican President can go after him for data mining in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The solution that I see to all this is the one proposed by Dershowitz which is to say torture warrants. That de politicizes it which is what we should want, subject to the further risk of forum shopping. That risk can be minimized as well if we have a portion of the Federal Judiciary is trained to hear such cases.

I am unalterably opposed to use of the supercomputer to monitor conversations of Americans. If it is permitted then little will be left of the Fourth Amendment in my opinion.

If Obama doesn’t block the investigation, Pelousy will. It wouldn’t do for her complicity in the abuses (as an enabler, if nothing else) to be revealed in this investigation.

Obama is a master of sweeping allegations without supporting proof. The other day here on this site one of his supporters applied the same tactic which I pointed out was sophistry. But sophistry wears no political label. Republicans are capable of it too. The allegation has been put forward that the extreme interrogation techniques produced information not obtainable through other means that prevented a second attack. If that is true then it flies in the face of the canard Earl Warren was famous for in the context of the Miranda case that torture never produces valid information because they will say anything to avoid further torture. You hear that from others as well. And it may well be true in the majority of cases but was it true in this case. In other words, did it actually prevent a second attack and what evidence is there to substantiate it. If an investigation goes forward that question needs to be addressed.

To McGovern, Johnson, et al:

Thank you for standing up for Geneva Conventions, the Constitution, the Conventions Against Torture, signed by President Reagan, and the rule of law.

Let me know if I can be of service in this regard.

Ed Reed
Surfered
US Army 1970-1972

Admiral Burke who was the great destroyer commander of World War II once said that any commander who does not exceed his orders when circumstances require him to do so is not worth much, etc. That principle suggests that we would not want to tie the hands of the interrogators too tightly when the survival of the nation or major populations is at threatened and the threat is deemed imminent.

I agree. We must “stand up for Geneva Conventions, the Constitution, the Conventions Against Torture, signed by President Reagan, and the rule of law.”

Many of you have insights into this subject that I do not have. I respect that.

All I ask is that we think about those exceptional situations where strict adherence to those rules fails to produce information necessary to saving lives.

That is where the judicial remedy enumerated above makes sense, at least to me.

This is why we have “The One” as President. Stupid ass politics, tit for tat payback and just plain ignorance. We really have become a nation of hapless sheep.

Another self-righteous missive from a group that confuses their dislike for the Bush people with the fact that even a blind squirrel finds a nut – once in a while.

Bush may have been pretty incompetent, but in the aftermath of 9/11, not many people were ready to give Miranda rights and cookies and milk to terrorists.

All these intelligence people always forget one crucial thing:
The so-called “intelligence” agencies MISSED 9/11.
Major league fuck up.

“All I ask is that we think about those exceptional situations where strict adherence to those rules fails to produce information necessary to saving lives.”

For those occasions, we have Jack Bauer with a blowtorch standing by at FOX’s “24″, Leon Panetta has his number.

The efforts of these Intelligence Veterans is appreciated.

The rest of us could help them
by doing weekly protests and vigils to keep Torture Prosecution in front of the voters. If we can get indictments for torture it will lead to investigations for other Bush/Cheney crimes. Torture is the admitted and obvious low hanging fruit.

Get out in the streets in front of your Congressional Representative’s office and raise hell.

Start your own “prosecution” protest group.

KEEP ASKING ALL POLITICIANS AT ALL PUBLIC EVENTS
“WHY DO YOU SUPPORT TORTURE?”
If they aren’t actively calling for enforcement of our Federal Torture Laws, They DO Support Torture and a dual standard of Justice.

SIGN THE PETITIONS
Demanding
prosecution for all those leaders
in Bush’s Administration that Conspired to Torture at ANGRYVOTERS.ORG

http://ANGRYVOTERS.ORG

Only Prosecution Stops Torture,
Abuse of Power, our Constitution, & Rule Of Law

I’m curious.
Did you want rule of law for Teddy Kennedy?
Bill Ayers?
Tim Geithner?

I’m curious.
Who did Ted Kennedy torture?

Mary Jo comes to mind

“Rule of law” means rule of law, not just laws you don’t like.
The three people I referenced all committed significant crimes (manslaughter for the senator) and received reward, not punishment.
By that standard, the CIA “torturers” should receive medals and a pension.

It’s all POLOTICS!!!! Holder is working at the behest of Pelosi & her gang of…..! This is bullshit
pure & simple, A number of the so called”professionals” who signed this memo to Holder
are nothing but jokes!!! Check each one’s background,
That will answer a lot of questions!!!

Join the ‘REAL WORLD’!!! They want to prosecute the
wrong people!!!