A Sliver of Good News

I hate that I’m now clinging to scraps like this to make myself happier about President Obama’s efforts to overturn torture, but this is an improvement over the Bush Administration. The acting head of OLC has determined that military commissions cannot use statements gotten through torture to convict detainees.

The Justice Department has determined that detainees tried by military commissions in the U.S. can claim at least some constitutional rights, particularly protection against the use of statements taken through coercive interrogations, officials said.

The conclusion, explained in a confidential memorandum whose contents were shared with The Wall Street Journal, could alter significantly the way the commissions operate — and has created new divisions among the agencies responsible for overseeing the commissions.

Of course, the WSJ finds the folks at DOD who are upset by this decision so as to push back against even this minimal improvement (there are those at DOD who don’t agree with this sentiment).

Defense Department officials warn that the Justice Department position could reduce the chance of convicting some defendants. Military prosecutors have said involuntary statements comprise the lion’s share of their evidence against dozens of Guantanamo prisoners who could be tried.

Also note, this decision (made in early May) should have been made by Obama’s nominee to head OLC, Dawn Johnsen. But her confirmation still languishes. Maybe Senator Franken can change that.

image_print
  1. BoxTurtle says:

    I’m not sure that ANY of the folks we currently have in custody could be convicted without tainted testimony. Either theirs or someone elses.

    And I also think this was just an acknowlegement of reality: As soon as it got in from of a real judge, it would get tossed anyway. And they are running out of ways to keep these out of the hands or real judges.

    I’m still betting that the endgame here will be to declare these folks POWs in the war on terror and declaring we’ll release them as soon as the war is over. We need to keep in mind that some of these folks WILL kill again if released.

    Boxturtle (And we need to follow our own darn laws)

    • bmaz says:

      EW, I’m with Box Turtle here and, therefore, cannot give Obama (or Holder) too much credit. It is actually just a bow to the reality made crystal clear from a series of detainee decisions by the Supremes finding the applicability of the most basic protections from Constitution and law to the detainees and defendants. No reasonable lawyer around would believe at this point that such protections and constricts could be avoided. The law is already pretty much there, in spite of the efforts of the Bush and Obama Administrations. They were forced kicking and screaming like little torquemada brats all the way to this point, but were already there. And BoxTurtle makes another salient point I fully expect to be tried (malevolently and wrongfully) by the government, namely using coerced testimony from others even while they exclude tortured confession evidence. If they have really also given up on secondary coerced evidence I would be shocked.

        • bmaz says:

          Hey, it is still early out here you know (and already 90 degrees headed for 106). It is hard to get out of bed….

      • BoxTurtle says:

        If they have really also given up on secondary coerced evidence I would be shocked

        They will have to. Obama is a lawyer and anybody who graduated from law school and came even CLOSE to passing the bar would know tainted testimony gets tossed.

        But their problem is worse than that. If I’m a defense lawyer, I challenge every bit of evidence and make them prove it was not tainted. This why hearsay evidence is so important, it’s the only way to get tainted evidence considered without it being challenged. And ObamaCo is going to lose on that as well.

        Boxturtle (If we call ‘em POWs, where do we put the prison camps?)

        • Mary says:

          Some of that is going on. The lawyers for Ghailani are arguing that they should be given access to the CIA sites were he was held:

          Lawyers for Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani said they needed access to the secret detention sites, whose locations abroad have not been publicly identified, to gather evidence and inspect whether any statements the Tanzanian made under interrogation were reliable, according to court papers filed in Manhattan federal court.

          Which does actually make some sense. They are also asking the court to order that the CIA preserve the sites and are arguing that there will be exculpatory evidence lost or destroyed if Panetta finishes his clean up crew.

          Oh – and apparently no one has twiddled fingers over whether or not they could bring Ghailani to trial, irrespective of the Nashiri torture. Interesting, that.

      • Mary says:

        I agree with you on not having to give Holder and Obama much credit (and IIRC the OLC opinion quotes printed sound not only apologetic that it has to opt out on torture testimony, but also makes it sound like the courts are this horrible dangerous “threat” to the Executive branch’s torture programs).

        Where I don’t necessarily agree with BoxTurtle is on the inability to get evidence bc of a lack of hardcore evidence that it was based on torture and also on an inability to get convictions on even really bad evidence with huge holes. I go back to what went on with the Chicago Saleh case on the ability to get in evidence that was pretty clearly obtained under coercion if not torture – all put on by guys in black hoods who were never going to be subject to any court consequences if they lied their asses off.

        That laid a precedent for that approach and I think you’ll see it used. You also have the case pursued against Padilla, all based on pretty much nothing and with a defendant who, after years of being used for human experimentation couldn’t begin to assist in his own defense(to the point where he told his lawyers he couldn’t let them do anything that would make GITMO prisoners go free).

        I will say with Saleh, they didn’t really get much on the conviction front. But with these GITMO prisoners who are allegedly tied in with concrete acts of terrorism – embassies, Cole, 9/11 etc. – I don’t think the jury pools that would convict Padilla for squashtalking will have any trouble convicting. Even with very huge holes in the evidence. Which is another reason why the torture was such a gratuitous assault on America. We were ready to convict on bad evidence anyway – to torture before the convictions, just to show that Bush could and Obama can – it’s just sick.

        • bmaz says:

          Oh, I agree. The thing is, using real evidence sifted for the inappropriate and excludable, takes time to, you know, sift it and work it up. These guys are really lazy at this point and their evidence is in disarray. Disarray may be kind actually. Remember the quote, and it was never really disputed, that “it is not a matter of files, there are no files”? For one detainee, okay, they can scramble and do that. But for 50, 75, a couple of hundred, I think they have a problem, and it is entirely of their own making. A problem nevertheless, and like I said they are lazy. that is why I am convinced they will try to backdoor and bootstrap secondary coerced evidence.

          • Mary says:

            Yeah, and that is one of their own making. The military knows well and good that a big part of what sank the Nazis in trials after the war was their meticulous record keeping. So when you are engaged in war crimes, best to keep the documentation all fuzzy. If that means it is just as fuzzy for the bad guys you do roll up, so be it. Protecting America isn’t as important as protecting your ass.

            A perfect example of how it shoots in the foot is the “Mullah Shahzada” story I linked to earlier. They had the real Mullah Shahzada and another guy sold to them as being Mullah Shahzada but was a school teacher who could well and easily prove he had nothing to do with the Taliban and al-Qaeda and wasn’t Mullah Shahzada. So … the release the REAL Shahzada and keep the teacher at GITMO. Or there as the Khirullah Khairkhwa story – where they had the real Khirullah Khairkhwa and had held him over a year, but then inexplicably bought info from a couple of guys who told them that Abdullah Khan was Khairkhwa. Not only did they take Khan to GITMO (where Khairkhwa already was being held) but they also took two guys who were involved in the “crime” of “associating” with Khan, uh, Khairkhwa, uh, whoever.

            El-Masri, Errachidi, Vance, etc. – the patterns swirl.

            • bmaz says:

              Crikey, I have no idea exactly. Legally, I would argue that it is all intentional in that it was the product of either intentional scattering of evidence or an intentional disregard of proper evidentiary file keeping protocols.

        • WilliamOckham says:

          I think the best way to view the Obama administration’s approach to torture is see it as containment instead of rollback (using George Kennan’s approach to dealing with communism as an analogy). That’s a thoroughly reprehensible position, but it’s not quite the same as the Cheney/Bush approach. Obama has apparently decided that torture is wrong, but it’s too difficult to undo it all, so he’s just going to do what he can to limit the effects. If you have a politico-theological bent, you could say he’s taking a very Niebuhrian view, and, indeed, Niebuhr is Obama’s favorite theologian.

          • ghostof911 says:

            Quite the practical guy, finding a “theology” with which he could ingratiate himself with the scum of humanity, while giving himself the persona of being “above it all.”

            What a piece of work.

            • WilliamOckham says:

              Yeah, I had forgotten that, but Comey’s thesis was a compare/contrast on Niebuhr and Falwell. Niebuhr’s always been more popular outside theology departments than inside. Niebuhr wasn’t a really systematic theologian, so it’s easy to draw different conclusions from his work. George Kennan really did draw on Niebuhr’s work in developing the policy of containment. Martin Luther King, Jr. was also influenced by Niebuhr. Some neocons like Niebuhr because he supported U.S. entry into World War II and the Cold War on moral and theological grounds. If you have the intellectual depth of Ross Douthat you can argue that Niebuhr would have supported waterboarding KSM.

              The part of Obama’s approach to torture that seems Niebuhrian to me is his apparent adoption of the idea that governments are less moral than individuals and that’s ok. That’s a gross, but fair, oversimplification of Niebuhr’s thought.

              • Mary says:

                My best shot at being a theologist would have been to compare and contrast Rin Tin Tin and Flicka.

          • Mary says:

            That’s some context and I don’t really have much politico-theological bent that I know of, but I have to say that isn’t what he is achieving.

            My background was hard sciences and math/business (leaping from pre-vet to accounting) where you have to really pay attention to consequences stemming from both action and inaction, as you can blow up a lab or a business with the wrong calls – as opposed to merely blowing up a nation and then getting a book deal and payoffs to be a Fox News analyst. Oddly – I’m still not attracted to politics. Or to taxidermy.

            Containment would have been pardons, published allocutions as broad as possible with reparations.

            Instead, we go from a Rizzo who can’t be confirmed to a Preston who is easily confirmed – although both lay down the same ideology. Containment? Not so much. And Obama is happy to play “King of the Drone Wars” so I don’t think you can really say he isn’t good to go with torture. Bombing civilians is pretty torturous, for them at least.

            But less disgruntled and more to the point, by ushering in a new administration with full embrace of the prior administration’s Presidential Torturers and Presidential Torture as being something about which the President and Atty General can collude and issue statements that it “won’t be investigated, much less prosecuted” — issue those publically and without even a quiver of concern — that really takes things far beyond where Bush went.

            Bush, at least, had to keep up the guise that torture didn’t happen. Obama has gone the next step and abandoned the pretense that we didn’t torture, and instead has taken that position that it did happen, but that the office of the President can order up torture without being subject to consequences from Congress, from a subsequent administration or from the courts, who will never have the criminal case brought before them. That is not a containment, it’s a precedential recipe for disaster.

            And in doing that, in handing out the best plea bargain ever, Obama hasn’t even required an allocution. It’s horrible and insidiously worse than what we got from Bush. And for that matter, while I keep trying to tell myself that McCain would have been worse, I can’t help but think that with McCain as President, the Dems might have been better. I can’t help but think that McCain would have had a hard time offering up a CIA Gen Counsel who thought waterboarding and disappearing 4 yos and kidnapping-stripping-sodomizing-drugging stray Germans with the wrong name, etc. was something about which he couldn’t formulate an opinion.

            • WilliamOckham says:

              You know that. I know that. I don’t think Obama sees it that way and it’s not just self-justifying blindness. He thinks he is upholding the Rule of Law and his campaign promises. Does that matter to you? Probably not, unless understanding his way of thinking gives us a lever into changing it. I will grant you, right out of the box, that the chances of us having an influence on Obama’s thinking is really low. You probably think it’s zero and I certainly can’t prove you wrong. On the other hand, this is a situation where I’m willing to apply Cheney’s 1% rule (bet you never thought I’d say that). If there’s even a .00001% chance that I can affect Obama’s policy on torture, I’m personally obligated by my own moral code to try. That’s why I’m struggling to understand how he ended up where his is. I’m not arguing that you should be doing the same. I just hope folks here understand that in trying to understand Obama’s viewpoint, I’m not condoning it.

              • rapt says:

                “If there’s even a .00001% chance that I can affect Obama’s policy…”

                FWIW I think you and bmaz both have a much better chance than that, just by posting your thoughts here and elsewhere. Blogs have affected and are affecting overall awareness, and to a lesser extent, public policy. Continuously.

                Best you can do is keep at it.

    • ghostof911 says:

      We need to keep in mind that some of these folks WILL kill again if released.

      Whatever amount they did, they would have a hard time catching up with the competition.

    • Palli says:

      I am a deeply concerned pacifist- but I say this mantra over and over in order to bulwark myself against the day when I will again be tested. Our inhuman military practices in this evil war would test anyone- any POW from any culture. This was, indeed, a fully intended consequence of the Cheney/Bush fabrication called a war on terror.
      After all, aren’t we running a risk not bringing Cheney, Addington, Yoo et al, to justice.

      • ghostof911 says:

        Bravo Palli. I would venture to say an even more substantial risk, given the number of their moles that remain in the CIA and the DOD.

  2. JimWhite says:

    This memo would explain the “need” for indefinite detention, which becomes a very Bush-like work around against releasing torture victims.

    • BoxTurtle says:

      “indefinite detention” is unlikely to survive court review without a declaration of war from the senate and suspension of habeas. Neither of which are likely. The ObamaCo is doing all they can to prevent definitive rulings while they try to think their way out of the mess BushCo left them.

      Boxturtle (Proud supporter of digital dickweeds everywhere)

    • Rayne says:

      Yes, unfortunately, there’s going to be yet another violation of the Constitution holding somebody like KSM indefinitely, because they don’t want to run the risk of being forced to release him if they handle his case according to U.S. law.

      So they choose to violate detainees’ rights because they know that evidence against them was obtained through torture, in part to avoid creating any precedent…I wonder if they simply haven’t been smart enough to build the right case against key detainees like KSM where they have intelligence against them which corroborates conspiracy and other crimes but without using any other evidence obtained through torture. It’d be a win-win if they’d get their act together since it would make intel folks heroes.

      Have to wonder what if anything they do have against them…

      What was particularly annoying this morning was hearing Ari Fleischer on NPR praising Obama for his retention of the photos. Why NPR thinks it’s acceptable to get the feedback of an unindicted co-conspirator on obstruction of justice which could affect him personally is beyond me.

    • bobschacht says:

      I was going to make the same point.
      Among the people accidentally swept up into Guantanamo are some who might be real terrorists. Unfortunately, their cases have been so badly botched that all the evidence against them is tainted. In a true democratic republic, those individuals would have to be released, and they probably should be. However, nothing in the Constitution or our laws requires that they be released where they were originally detained. Nothing requires that they be released into a community where terrorists are harbored.

      In other words, there is no excuse for an extra-Constitutional policy of indefinite retention.

      Bob in HI

      • fatster says:

        Sure makes you wonder if this thing was so badly botched intentionally to avoid having to deal with the law or if it was a result of vast incompetence. Just look at the quote from Murphy in Jeff Kaye’s response @ 34. “Credibility gap” indeed!

    • acquarius74 says:

      Jim and all you pups: I just posted an Oxdown diary giving the online ACLU letter [which you can alter in any way you please] to be sent to Pres. Obama, and each signer’s senators and representative. The letter is a call to oppose indefinite detention without charge or trial.

      If you don’t care to read my diary, here is the link to the online letter.

      Please, folks, we must do what we can to stop this – – how long before ‘they’ accuse us with some cooked-up suspected activity and put us away??
      It may not happen in my life-time, but I have grandchildren…

  3. fatster says:

    This is a bit of good news, EW. Thanks for highlighting it.

    And name-calling has now gone beyond “DFH”:

    Inflamed CNBC host calls bloggers ‘digital dickweeds’

    BY JOHN BYRNE 

Published: July 1, 2009 
Updated 12 minutes ago

    “Television is a place of maturity and thought. The blogosphere is a place of dickweeds.

    “That’s according to CNBC host Dennis Kneale, who’s declared the recession over, and went postal on critical financial bloggers Tuesday.”

    http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/01/9473/

    Pathetic, isn’t it?

    • Petrocelli says:

      Ian’s prolly sitting in a Keg celebratin’ Canada Day but perhaps Sterling will put up a post, flailing this analog
      asswipe ( love that, drational ! )

      Happy Canada Day !

      • Mary says:

        That is a sad, unhinged episode, isn’t it? He says that’s the only thing that will cause a grass roots movement that will force politicians to allow our government to “protect” us as “violently” as needed.

        I’ve ranged from skeptic to agnostic on whether there is going to be anything worth getting from the IG report, with way more skeptic than agnostic. But without seeing the whole thing with Beck (blergh) or getting all the context, that level of unhingedness (from the guys who never quite shared with the FBI the info that might of prevented 9/11) sounds like Marcy is right and I’m wrong. I think only getting ready to see some of the veener of the Real Patriots Torture mythology stripped would cause that kind of death to America reaction from Scheuer.

  4. JimWhite says:

    I suppose a recess appointment for Johnsen won’t happen? Isn’t Congress already in recess?

    [I got a digit for those dickweeds at CNBC…]

  5. Rayne says:

    OT – hey EW, don’t know if you had a chance to catch latest edition of NOVA ScienceNOW on PBS. Segment on the anthrax attacks and how they deduced the source of the pathogen – ahem.

  6. Mary says:

    Mad Dog & I were talking a bit about this in comments earlier and the Pentagon guy gave me a headache. He admits that the Sup Ct has recognized habeas rights. So he’s saying that while they wouldn’t be able to use torture in the habeas proceedings to determine whether or not we can hold a kidnap victim human purchase detainee, they can in a commission to execute them.

    It’s more and more understandable that no one at the Pentagon has figured out yet that bombing babies doesn’t bring peace and stability to a region.

    • cinnamonape says:

      Those Civil War cases ruling against Lincoln pretty clearly delimit that the President (or Congress) can only suspend habeas during a war, when the detainees are IN THE War Zone. Once they have been secured in an area beyond the combat, and reachable by the Federal Courts habeas applies. It’d take a Constitutional amendment to alter that.

    • phred says:

      Good point, maybe we should start referring to DOD as DOO (Dept. of Offense).

      BTW, I thought this bit from Kneale was a real knee slapper:

      Television is a place of maturity and thought.

      On what planet?

      • fatster says:

        That explains it, phred. I don’t have a tee vee service, so obviously I’ve missed out on all the maturity and thoughtfulness our tee vee culture can muster.

        • phred says:

          Too bad fatster, ’cause if you were raised on Romper Room and Bozo the Clown you would be as mature and thoughtful as the rest of us ; ) Too be fair, no one who works for Murdoch must have watched those shows either, because they taught manners ; )

          • fatster says:

            Since I can’t access Romper Room, phred, I turned to kidsturncentral:

            “Canada Day celebrates the events that occurred on July 1, 1867, when the British North America Act created the Canadian federal government. The BNA Act proclaimed “one Dominion under the name of Canada,” hence the original title of the holiday, “Dominion Day.” Dominion Day was officially renamed “Canada Day” by an Act of Parliament on October 27, 1982. This change reflected the policy of successive governments to down play Canada’s colonial origins.”

            http://www.kidsturncentral.com…..adaday.htm

            And so to skdadl and all other Canadians: Happy Canada Day!

          • freepatriot says:

            Too bad fatster, ’cause if you were raised on Romper Room and Bozo the Clown you would be as mature and thoughtful as the rest of us

            well, not all of us

            Woody Woodpecker is what fucked me up

      • bobschacht says:

        Yeah, I had the same thought.

        BTW, Phred, drop me a line– I’ve got news on the Madison front.
        I’m traveling and I don’t have your e-mail address.

        Bob from HI
        currently in CA

  7. Peterr says:

    Defense Department officials warn that the Justice Department position could reduce the chance of convicting some defendants. Military prosecutors have said involuntary statements comprise the lion’s share of their evidence against dozens of Guantanamo prisoners who could be tried.

    Sounds like the DOD is admitting to something here.

    It would be nice if the SASC would invite them in to chat publicly about what they are admitting to have done. “Let’s talk about “involuntary statements,” General. . .”

    • cinnamonape says:

      It also means that the Pentagon is likely very aware of what evidence (and from whom) was obtained using coercive torture. After all, the spokesman gave a percentage.

  8. prostratedragon says:

    As to whether any of the prisoners could have untainted evidence brought against them at trial, Glenn linked a few days ago to an article by Booman that includes a review of the evidence against just one, Tawfiq bin Attash (Khallad).

    Based on that refresher to my memory of just when and how that name first surfaced in this whole deal, I’d say that his case might be both a counterexample to the universal taint cw, and an indicator of what at least some of the problem might be. I’m sure there are those who’d rather not have the source and timing of untainted evidence against successful terrorists too widely recalled.

  9. fatster says:

    Does this and the “digital dickweed” comment above indicate they are getting into “full court press” mode? Jeeeez.

    Bloggers don’t go to jail, Murdoch CEO laments

    BY RAW STORY 

Published: July 1, 2009 
Updated 2 hours ago

    “Tabloids are king and blogs are “barely discernible from massive ignorance,” according to John Hartigan, chief executive for News Limited, a cog in the Rupert Murdoch empire responsible for the publication of more than fifty newspapers in Australia.

    . . .

    “Citizen journalists, he says, simply don’t have the resources to bring us reliable news. They lack not only expertise and training but access to decision makers and reliable sources.

    “The difference, he says, between professionals and amateurs is that bloggers don’t go to jail for their work – they simply aren’t held accountable like real reporters.

    Like Keating’s famous “all tip and no iceberg”, it could be said that the blogosphere is all eyeballs and no insight.”

    http://rawstory.com/08/news/20…..o-laments/

    • Mary says:

      Murdoch’s crew don’t actually follow the news much, do they?

      I kinda think it was a blogger who spent more time in jail for contempt of court than any other journalist. Josh Wolf?

      Maybe it doesn’t count if no one sends you letters that wax lyric about tree roots?

  10. fatster says:

    Former CIA Officer in Algeria Charged With Sexual Assault

    By Del Quentin Wilber
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Wednesday, July 1, 2009

    “The CIA’s former top officer in Algeria has been indicted by a federal grand jury on a charge that he sexually assaulted a woman in the North African country last year. [emphasis added]

    . . .

    “In previous court filings, authorities alleged that Warren drugged and raped two women at his Algiers residence in September 2007 and February 2008.

    Authorities charged Warren only in the 2008 allegation. A CIA spokesman said that Warren had been fired and that the agency will “cooperate with law enforcement in this matter.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..02555.html
    I wonder when they fired him.

    • Mary says:

      Apparently there are videos too.

      No one gets around to asking Obama if THOSE will be held back by the CIA as classified evidence of enhanced interrogation techniques.

      • fatster says:

        Oh, gawd! Not videos, too.

        And I can tell (”no one sends you letters that wax lyric about tree roots”) that you woke up with your humor intact this morning. Amazes me.

  11. Jeff Kaye says:

    It’s not just about the Guantanamo prisoners. Setting up military commissions establishes a precedent, and there are plenty of new prisoners to be found out of Obama’s war in Afghanistan.

    There should not be military commissions for this bogus war on terror.

    It’s a good thing that some see the glass half-full, because it balances out curmudgeons or unrepentant radicals like me, who see it half-empty.

    From the WSJ article:

    Mr. Barron advised that federal courts were unlikely to require strict adherence to Bill of Rights provisions spelling out specific procedures, such as the Sixth Amendment speedy trial right, or the Miranda warning, which the Supreme Court imposed in 1966 to ensure compliance with the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney….

    “We believe that military commissions, as distinct from other courts, are designed to not provide constitutional rights,” Navy Capt. John F. Murphy, the Obama administration’s chief military prosecutor, said in an interview.

    The one exception, he said, was that created by the Supreme Court last year, when it ruled the Military Commissions Act of 2006 unconstitutionally stripped Guantanamo detainees of habeas corpus, a legal proceeding to challenge unlawful detention….

    On the other side, criminal defense lawyers representing Guantanamo detainees say that simply recognizing due process, without other constitutional rights, will not fix a system they contend is stacked against defendants. “The minute they’re making a distinction of ‘what we can get away with’…they are creating something of dubious legal viability,” said Cmdr. Suzanne Lachelier, a Naval Reserve lawyer appointed to represent alleged Sept. 11 conspirator Ramzi Binalshibh.

    In the Sixties, we called it a “credibility gap.” There is not much you can trust from a government that practices torture, or safeguards the torturers.

    • ghostof911 says:

      There should not be military commissions for this bogus war on terror.

      I was beginning to think I would never hear anyone on this site say that.

    • 1boringoldman says:

      Today’s July 1st.
      Where’s the fucking IG Report?

      It isn’t 4:59 yet

      If and when it gets released, how will we know?
      Where will it be available?

  12. prostratedragon says:

    John Hartigan speaks much nonsense. Furthermore, he almost certainly knows better than most of it. The man who said this

    Citizen journalists, he says, simply don’t have the resources to bring us reliable news. They lack not only expertise and training but access to decision makers and reliable sources.

    declined to include educational information in his bio. So perhaps he actually knows from direct experience that it’s not what you got, so much as how you use it. Hartigan is not simply ignorant, he’s trying to exploit what he hopes is a well-nutured snobbishness about such things as credentials among the public, while hoping no one notices the shift of much of those vast corporate resources away from actual news- and information-gathering.

    (And even so of course, I think the last sentence in particular is false in many more citizen venues than just this one. Someone should find an interesting way to let Mr. Hartigan know this.)

    • freepatriot says:

      Citizen journalists, he says, simply don’t have the resources to bring us reliable news. They lack not only expertise and training but access to decision makers and reliable sources.

      he’s right

      I lack access, training, expertise and reliable sources

      and even with those deficiencies, I was able to accurately predict the course of the invasion of Iraq

      so, maybe access, training, expertise and reliable sources are over rated ???

      none of the people who enjoy the benefits of being a trained expert journalist with access to reliable sources had a fucking clue

      some of those “expert” assholes told me that American troops would be welcomed with flowers

      and then there is the interesting case of Marcy Wheeler

      all she does is read a bunch of government documents

      I haven’t seen an evidence that she possesses “access, training, expertise and reliable sources”

      so how was Marcy able to break the story about waterboarding, or the Plame scandal ???

      I’m thinking that logic an critical analysis trumps “access, training, expertise and reliable sources”

      but I could be biased, having specialized in critical analysis an logic for most of my life …

  13. rapt says:

    Can we not take it as a given now that govt. case(s) against detainee(s) has collapsed? Remember, the govt never wanted a case in the first place; it went to great lengths to prevent any proper adjudication of whatever “crimes” they alleged, and as the courts slowly clamped down on their plans, only then sorta began to cobble together some legal strategy.

    So I’d say there was never any plan to actually convict anyone, in the normal sense of the word. The purpose of rounding up suspects and detaining them was to portray a gang of bad guys who were responsible for WTC and other terror. True guilt or innocence was never much of an issue for the detainers; it was just the public display of “muslim terrsts” which had value.

    Then of course the Cheneyites knew that torture-forced false confessions were in order for the purpose of 1) justifying the barbarity of mass arrests, and 2) distracting and muddying the waters to divert attention from the true perps, and 3) giving the lizards goons some practice and pleasure. Take it to court? Nah, never. Not part of the plan at all.

    I’ll leave it at that point, but the next question of course, is who is responsible for the attacks if not those scary arab prisoners, of whom none have been nor ever will be proven guilty in a court of law?

    • skdadl says:

      That all sounds about right to me, rapt. Things have become more complicated in maybe the last four years or so, since electoral fortunes began to shift, but I do think you’ve figured out how they set up the mess in the first place, and why.

    • ghostof911 says:

      the next question of course, is who is responsible for the attacks if not those scary arab prisoners,

      If you’re a novice to what’s been already disseminated ad nausem, you can start with any of plunger’s Oxdown diaries. Here’s a short list of the perps:

      – Saudi money
      – CIA & US military
      – Mossad (wiring of the towers with thermite)
      – major US MSM outlets, and the BBC
      – Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and other PNAC members as the primary movers

      • ghostof911 says:

        Following up, all on the list had something to gain from an invasion of Iraq.

        The bearded fellow in the cave in Afghanistan the Hollywood set, not so much.

    • freepatriot says:

      I’ll leave it at that point, but the next question of course, is who is responsible for the attacks if not those scary arab prisoners, of whom none have been nor ever will be proven guilty in a court of law?

      your question supposes a link between Iraq and Al Qeada that does not exist

      those “scary arab prisoners” are being used as pawns by people who used the 9-11 attacks to justify a pre-decided policy

      dick cheney wanted to oust Saddam back in 1991. 9-11 provided a pretext for the realization of his foolish desires

      stop trying to convolute the two crimes, or trying to solve one crime thru reference to the other crimes

      they are separate acts, only linked by bullshit and propaganda

      stop believing the lies

      • ghostof911 says:

        What we are up against is the adamant refusal of otherwise very intelligent people to accept the notion that the government of the United States would commit an act of terror against its own people. It’s akin to asking those who have been religious all their lives to give up their faith, because of incontroverible proof that their god is a fruad.

      • rapt says:

        and ghost @59

        You see I was “leaving it at that point”, partly out of fear that freepatriot would jump down my throat with guns blazing, and it sort of worked but a challenge was mounted anyway.

        your question supposes
        …Iraq and alQaeda? Me?

        stop trying…OK I’ll stop freep.

        they are separate acts, only linked by bullshit and propaganda
        Which two crimes are you talking about – I looked but couldn’t find a reference to them in post 44.

        stop believing the lies… OK I’ll stop that too.

        I am puzzled at your forceful efforts to censor my speech here freep.

        ghost, I must’ve been unclear in that last sentence; it was intended to draw out the questions etc. that you and plunger bring up often, in a subtle way I guess since I don’t like disturbing the mood here too much.

        • freepatriot says:

          Which two crimes are you talking about – I looked but couldn’t find a reference to them in post 44.

          on september 11, 2001, Al Qeada committed crimes against the united states

          on march 19, 2003, george bush committed crimes against humanity

          the two are not related

          does that clear things up ???

          the prisoners we tortured in Iraq have nothing to do with Al Qeada

          got it ???

  14. stryder says:

    ot WTF?
    After Obama held his first post-election meeting with Bush, the Obama camp leaked information that Bush had made a bailout of the US car industry conditional on Obama’s support for the US-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

    The leak appeared to show that Bush had put policy goals above the well-being of US workers.
    http://english.aljazeera.net/f…..63795.html

  15. Mary says:

    BTW – I think another “turnover” due today is the Cheney interview, in camera, to Judge Sullivan so he can decide on the national security interests met by protecting Cheney from Jon Stewart.

    Personally, I’m glad that they picked on Jon instead of Colbert. Apparently Gov could call Pelosi as a witness that she, too, thought Colbert was too dangerous to expose her little Congresscritters to, so hopefully no one will mention him to Sullivan as an alternative exclusionary grounds.

  16. wigwam says:

    Military prosecutors have said involuntary statements comprise the lion’s share of their evidence against dozens of Guantanamo prisoners who could be tried.

    I admire, and envy, the cleverness of the euphemists. Stuff like, “enhanced radiation weapons,” “enhanced interrogation,” and “involuntary statements” are such clever renderings of the horrific realities that they denote.

    • ghostof911 says:

      You left out “collateral damage” — massacred civilians who had the misfortune of being born on the same planet as the US military.

    • MadDog says:

      Ok, just listened to Press Secretary Gibbs’ press briefing and here’s the skinny:

      “The interagency review process is ongoing…Doubtful it would be released this week.”

      You can watch the press briefing at CSPAN here.

      The question and answers regarding the release of the CIA IG’s Special Review report takes place at 31:40.

      • MadDog says:

        Based on what Robert Gibbs was saying at the press briefing, my take is that the Intel staffers/flunkies are still in a pissing match with folks like the DOJ’s and White House Counsel’s Office staffers/flunkies.

        It does not appear that the Principals (CIA Director Panetta, AG Holder, National Security Advisor Jones (who is off traipsing around in Afghanistan/Pakistan), etc.) have stepped in, nor The Principal, President Obama and laid down the law.

        Makes one wonder at the apparent disrespect the Adminstration is showing to Judge Hellerstein by stringing him along again with more delays.

      • MadDog says:

        And direct from the press briefing transcript:

        …Q Robert, for a couple of weeks now, the internal report from the CIA put together by its inspector general on the interrogation techniques of that agency has been delayed. There are concerns among those — specifically, the ACLU has been fighting to get this — that it will be dumped late this week or right before the holiday weekend and sort of missed or lost. What is the status of that report? Why is it being delayed? And will it meet or exceed what you have set as a standard of transparency on this particularly sensitive national security topic?

        MR. GIBBS: My standard or Helen’s standard?

        Q The administration’s.

        MR. GIBBS: I think — here’s what I know of the report, and I would refer you to DOJ because I think part of this is obviously based on Freedom of Information Act litigation involving the ACLU and in some ways an outcropping of what you saw in the OLC memos that were released earlier this year in the President’s term.

        It’s my understanding that the interagency review of the document and what can be released is continuing and I don’t anticipate that that’s going to be released today.

        Q Today? This week?

        MR. GIBBS: It’s my understanding that it’s doubtful that it will be released this week.

        Q Doubtful. And this interagency review process, is part of it to increase the amount of information that’s available? Obviously the first report was almost thoroughly redacted. Is part of that process, part of the delay, to make this as transparent as possible or is it principally legal issues –

        MR. GIBBS: Well, I would say it’s a — in some ways, it’s a combination. Obviously part of this report, as I said, is an outcropping of that Freedom of Information Act litigation that resulted in the release of the OLC memos. Obviously some of the information that’s out now can — you can go back now through the older IG report — in a sense, I don’t know if this is a word, “unredact” some of that material. That’s what — I think that’s a decent part of what’s going on interagency-wise right now…

    • acquarius74 says:

      Thanks for the link, drational. IMO, the IG report will never be released to the public — national security secrecy, doncha know, like the detainee torture photos.

    • Mary says:

      That’s what I’ve basically been thinking – that there’s no way we are going to get anything worth having. But I have to say, what FreePatriot linked (from TPM I think) of Scheuer having a meltdown and rejoicing in the thought of Bin Laden attacking the US again bc that is the only way we’d have a “grassroots” movement that would force the government to engage in enough violence to save the nation — that kind of meltdown made me think maybe there is something that is going to be coming out.

      Scheurer (who IIRC was reportedly pretty tied in to the Arar rendition) has gone from able to objectively point out the problems of imperial hubris in our decision&policy making, to having a huge amount of personal hubris motivating him. When you froth over wanting another 9/11 so you can be more violent, that’s out there.

  17. skdadl says:

    I’m imagining dozens of Wheelies and Wheelers now swotting up on Niebuhr.

    That William of Ockham — such a taskmaster.

  18. bmaz says:

    Oh, I understand, and I think that is why we are all here to some extent. My concern is not that Obama cannot be moved, rather that he seems to be unmoved by the right and fundamental reasons. But, if we can effect it, movement is movement, I’ll take it.

  19. Mary says:

    I just hope folks here understand that in trying to understand Obama’s viewpoint, I’m not condoning it.

    Absolutely. I do fast replies that try to cram in too much or ramble and so appreciation for things like that isn’t always as evident as it should be.

    I’m personally obligated by my own moral code to try

    That part is very clear too. It’s pretty darn nice to see come through over and over.