home

President Obama's Statement On The Torture Memos

UPDATE - the August 1, 2002 Bybee memo (PDF). The Times has them all now (PDF).

The Department of Justice will today release certain memos issued by the Office of Legal Counsel between 2002 and 2005 as part of an ongoing court case. These memos speak to techniques that were used in the interrogation of terrorism suspects during that period, and their release is required by the rule of law.

[MORE . . .]

My judgment on the content of these memos is a matter of record. In one of my very first acts as President, I prohibited the use of these interrogation techniques by the United States because they undermine our moral authority and do not make us safer. Enlisting our values in the protection of our people makes us stronger and more secure. A democracy as resilient as ours must reject the false choice between our security and our ideals, and that is why these methods of interrogation are already a thing of the past.

But that is not what compelled the release of these legal documents today. While I believe strongly in transparency and accountability, I also believe that in a dangerous world, the United States must sometimes carry out intelligence operations and protect information that is classified for purposes of national security. I have already fought for that principle in court and will do so again in the future. However, after consulting with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and others, I believe that exceptional circumstances surround these memos and require their release.

First, the interrogation techniques described in these memos have already been widely reported. Second, the previous Administration publicly acknowledged portions of the program – and some of the practices – associated with these memos. Third, I have already ended the techniques described in the memos through an Executive Order. Therefore, withholding these memos would only serve to deny facts that have been in the public domain for some time. This could contribute to an inaccurate accounting of the past, and fuel erroneous and inflammatory assumptions about actions taken by the United States.

In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution. The men and women of our intelligence community serve courageously on the front lines of a dangerous world. Their accomplishments are unsung and their names unknown, but because of their sacrifices, every single American is safer. We must protect their identities as vigilantly as they protect our security, and we must provide them with the confidence that they can do their jobs.

Going forward, it is my strong belief that the United States has a solemn duty to vigorously maintain the classified nature of certain activities and information related to national security. This is an extraordinarily important responsibility of the presidency, and it is one that I will carry out assertively irrespective of any political concern. Consequently, the exceptional circumstances surrounding these memos should not be viewed as an erosion of the strong legal basis for maintaining the classified nature of secret activities. I will always do whatever is necessary to protect the national security of the United States.

This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America’s ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future.

The United States is a nation of laws. My Administration will always act in accordance with those laws, and with an unshakeable commitment to our ideals. That is why we have released these memos, and that is why we have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them never take place again.

The Department of Justice released the following statement:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE RELEASES FOUR OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL OPINIONS

In connection with ongoing litigation, the Department of Justice today released four previously undisclosed Office of Legal Counsel ("OLC") opinions - one that OLC issued to the Central Intelligence Agency in August 2002 and three that OLC issued to the CIA in May 2005.

"The President has halted the use of the interrogation techniques described in these opinions, and this administration has made clear from day one that it will not condone torture," said Attorney General Eric Holder. "We are disclosing these memos consistent with our commitment to the rule of law."

Holder also stressed that intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and relied in good faith on authoritative legal advice from the Justice Department that their conduct was lawful, and conformed their conduct to that advice, would not face federal prosecutions for that conduct.

The Attorney General has informed the Central Intelligence Agency that the government would provide legal representation to any employee, at no cost to the employee, in any state or federal judicial or administrative proceeding brought against the employee based on such conduct and would take measures to respond to any proceeding initiated against the employee in any international or foreign tribunal, including appointing counsel to act on the employee's behalf and asserting any available immunities and other defenses in the proceeding itself.

To the extent permissible under federal law, the government will also indemnify any employee for any monetary judgment or penalty ultimately imposed against him for such conduct and will provide representation in congressional investigations.

"It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department," Holder said.

After reviewing these opinions, OLC has decided to withdraw them: They no longer represent the views of the Office of Legal Counsel.

< Obama Administration To Release Torture Memos | A Truth and Reconciliation Commission >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I wish (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by kmblue on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:21:26 PM EST
    his statements didn't always read and sound like lectures or class outlines.
    No offense to the fine teachers who post here. ;)

    Compare and contrast! (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:38:55 PM EST
    Qualify your statement by assessing both -- or more -- sides of the question.  <hedge aka CYA>  

    Yeh, sometimes he reads like someone who so carefully, actually read instructions on an essay test question.

    I expect to hear the standard last instruction:  Discuss.

    Oh, and no offense taken.  That is, if I'm a fine teacher.  Semester evals are coming up, and I'll get to see what students say about that. :-)

    Parent

    sounds (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by kmblue on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:40:25 PM EST
    like fun, Cream! ;)

    Parent
    He is who he is (none / 0) (#101)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:11:26 PM EST
    he's a skilled orator, and at times is astonishingly eloquent off the cuff, but on things like this he falls back on what he knows- professorial style, Clinton did it to a lesser extent when pushed as well I think it might just be a Law Professor tic.

    Parent
    I also (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by kmblue on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:23:12 PM EST
    disagree there's nothing to be gained from "retribution."  

    When I commit a crime, is justice for me "retribution"?  

    look (4.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:29:36 PM EST
    no one would like to see BushCo prosecuted more than me.  but the next statement:

    "I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America's ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future."

    --

    seems to me to make an undeniable kind of sense.  we have huge problems to deal with.  HUGE.  I doubt most of us even understand how huge.  the country is already the most divided it probably has ever been.
    Im just sayin.

    Parent

    I get the (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by CST on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:34:37 PM EST
    "now is not the time" meme a lot more than "nothing to be gained" which sounds like a "never" statement.

    Parent
    I see your point, Captain (none / 0) (#11)
    by kmblue on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:32:04 PM EST
    but I'm bitter about BushCo walking after all their abuses of the rule of law.

    Now, if I could get a pass for robbing a bank
    (since I can't find a job)....;)

    Parent

    By these rules, you can (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:42:20 PM EST
    When you get caught, just tell the officers that they have more important things to do with their time....afterall, there's probably another, maybe even bigger, heist about to happen that they should be working on. Your crime is past, and no sense looking to place blame.


    Parent
    you are missing the point (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:47:28 PM EST
    the country, including you, is in a very big ditch.
    we will not get it out by further dividing the population into camps.
    however good it would feel it would be stupid.


    Parent
    Stupid? (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:01:15 PM EST
    I disagree.

    We may be in a ditch, but so what?  Life never just hands you one problem and waits for you to solve it before handing you another.

    Look, this is the same argument we heard when the matter of impeachment came up - we had too much on our plates.  Because it was never dealt with, all of the executive power Bush took is still there - and Obama has already extended it.  So, instead of drawing a line and doing what we could to make sure there were limits on executive power and consequences for exceeding it, we just let it stand.

    You don't deal with "bad" behavior by ignoring it or excusing it; it never goes away.

    The past is prologue - haven't we figured that out yet?


    Parent

    so what? (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:08:59 PM EST
    we did hear the same about impeachment and it was bull.  that was before the economy collapsed.
    its no longer bull.
    Obama is going to need the good will of at least SOME of the republicans to get us out of this.
    and besides, what did you think was really going to happen to Bush and company?
    you think they are going to go to jail?
    be shot at sunrise?  what would satisfy you?

    it was never going to happen.  on the other hand we may just survive this clusterf**k we are now in the midst of if he can manage to keep the country from exploding like a cheap condom in the process.


    Parent

    listen (4.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:39:42 PM EST
    if you can figure it out I will drive.  

    I am finding it odd that I find myself defending this administration from many of the same people whos glazed worship of Obama drove me from this site months ago.

    my vision was clear then and it is clear now.  as I said in another thread I never thought much would happen to them no matter what was released.  it was never going to happen.  the right is poised to attack.  they are using every ridiculous wedge they can dig up.  any real prosecution of BushCo would be a gift to them.


    Parent

    Look (none / 0) (#15)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:38:54 PM EST
    can't learn from a mistake if no one knows exactly what happened. If there are no consequences, most people would assume not a big deal.

    There are plenty of people in service at the gov't to put some in charge of cleaning up the past while the bulk work on the future. The idea that only one direction is of value leaves terrible scars and problems for the future.

    It's lame, at best, for Obama to try to convince people the past hasn't enough significance to pursue justice.


    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#102)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:13:16 PM EST
    I think its pretty clear what he's saying is that there's a fear that if they attempt to get justice- the GOP will go beyond what they've already done.

    Parent
    re: look (none / 0) (#110)
    by Jackstraw on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 06:44:07 PM EST
    Accountability is a luxury we cannot afford in this time of "great challenges and disturbing disunity".

    Hogwash.

    Pretty f'in simple.

    Parent

    Hey (none / 0) (#111)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 06:46:57 PM EST
    Re: Hey (none / 0) (#112)
    by Jackstraw on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 08:04:44 PM EST
    That's a different guy.  I'm from Wichita.

    Parent
    I disagree with this: (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by CST on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:25:04 PM EST
    "nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past"

    If you don't hold people accountable for their actions, than you are saying that those actions are fine, or that some people are above the law.

    Also, this is a double standard for what we often require of other countries with regards to their war criminals.

    I don't know the applicable federal statute (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:30:03 PM EST
    but in the Model Penal Code, I think this would be one of the rare cases where a "mistake of law" defense would be allowed.

    Parent
    accountability (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by CST on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:44:48 PM EST
    to me would be going after the one who wrote the orders not the one who followed orders.

    Parent
    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:46:31 PM EST
    Though I don't much care for the Nuremberg defense.

    Parent
    I can't pretend to remember the model penal (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Joelarama on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:46:12 PM EST
    code at this point in my civil litigation career, but it seems to me that reliance on a legal opinion that is clearly at variance with excepted norms ought to be presented as a counter to any "mistake of law" argument.

    How about this:  consider a defendant who took part in torture, and who also took part in generating the Justice Department memo   making it legal.   Or, consider a defendant who knew firsthand (by showing documents s/he read) that the memorandum in question was politically motivated and had shaky legal foundations.

    Parent

    Several grammar and spelling errors in the (none / 0) (#39)
    by Joelarama on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:47:19 PM EST
    above but hope you get my gist.

    Parent
    Those are good arguments to overcome (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:49:51 PM EST
    the defense. BTW, I'm referring to the following:

    Authorized Reliance/Official Statement Exception:

          MPC § 2.04(3): "A belief that conduct does not legally constitute an offense is a defense to a    prosecution for that offense based upon such conduct when:

                (a) the statute or other enactment defining the offense is not known to the actor  & has     not been published or otherwise reasonably made available prior to conduct     alleged (Promulgation Req.); or  

                (b) he acts in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law, afterward     determined to be invalid or erroneous, contained in

                      (i) a statute or other enactment;          (ii) a judicial decision, opinion or judgment;

                      (iii) an administrative order or grant of permission; or

                      (iv) an official interpretation of the public officer or body charged by law w/      responsibility for the interpretation, administration or enforcement of      the law defining the offense."




    Parent
    Can you have a "belief" that torture (none / 0) (#50)
    by Joelarama on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:54:32 PM EST
    is legal if you knew how flimsy were the arguments presented in a Justice Department memo?  Not just a layperson defendant, but a person who deals with these issues, and likely a lawyer him/herself.

    Also, I wonder what the treaties on torture say on mistake of law.  Once ratified, they are domestic law that might preempt the statute depending on the timing and wording.

    Parent

    All good questions (none / 0) (#53)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:55:47 PM EST
    And I'm not even sure that this particular defense is available in the relevant jurisdiction(s).

    Parent
    Despite all the "let's get past this".. (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by magster on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:01:13 PM EST
    rhetoric, it seems that the statements from both Obama and Holder very carefully only excepted the CIA operatives who carried out the orders for immunity, and not those who gave the orders.

    Maybe Obama does not want to prosecute, but maybe he won't stand in the way if the political will is there to go there.

    Parent

    I would hope so (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:02:18 PM EST
    Bybee in particular deserves to go to jail IMO.

    Parent
    He needs to be disbarred and impeached and (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Joelarama on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:08:15 PM EST
    removed, as well.

    I expect there will be Bar complaints today.

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#66)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:10:05 PM EST
    if not (none / 0) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:14:58 PM EST
    there should be complaints about the Bar.

    Parent
    Hmm. If the torture was at GitMo, the (none / 0) (#81)
    by Joelarama on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:29:55 PM EST
    Supreme Court has decided, I believe, that U.S. Federal Law applies.

    Parent
    It seems that "Just following orders." (none / 0) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:33:40 PM EST
    is now a creditable defense.

    Parent
    And what about giving those orders? (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:41:11 PM EST
    I want retribution.  I've been reflecting on it for eight years already.

    Parent
    Giving the orders was IMO (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:50:43 PM EST
    against U.S. and international laws and the people involved need to held accountable.

    I do not want retribution so much as I want it firmly established that NOONE is entitled to order or conduct these activities. The only way to accomplish this is to hold them accountable for their actions.

    Parent

    Start with Cheney (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:22:51 PM EST
    Impeach Bybee.  Disbar Yoo.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:59:14 PM EST
    But this statement (and the policy behind it) also protects current members of the administration from any future serious inquiries by members of the opposition. The "I scratched your back, now you scratch mine."

    It's a pre-emptive defense, since Obama, nor anyone in his administration knows at this point what they may want to do that they may not want to be made public.

    It's called "learning from the experience of previous administrations", also known as "hedging your bets."

    Parent

    He is saying (none / 0) (#63)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:08:21 PM EST
    that the president of the United States is above the law.  He certainly doesn't want to set a precedent for prosecuting anyone in the executive or allied.

    I'm glad he released the unredacted memos.

    Parent

    Sounds like they won't be redacted (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by lilburro on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:26:05 PM EST
    but in the last two paragraphs, he just totally lost me.  The memos are so godawful they require a preface...but, um, nothing went wrong, just a little mistake, walk on by!

    Truth and Reconciliation Commission (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:31:33 PM EST


    Yes, I might be satisfied with that (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:34:14 PM EST
    We can't just move on and say 'we don't do that anymore'. That gives no disincentive to prevent it happening again.

    I understand Obama does not want to get sidetracked from his goals for his administration, but I don't think this would be a big distraction. The government is fully capable of multi-tasking.

    Parent

    that sounds workable to me (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:40:29 PM EST
    Reading the memos now (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:43:08 PM EST
    Really bad stuff.

    Jay Bybee is a monster.

    Parent

    It's making me a little ill, (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:48:10 PM EST
    reading the cold language justifying each of the techniques, supported by assurances that nothing they want to do comes under the heading of "torture."

    I've only just read the one re: Zubaydah; not sure I want to read the rest.

    Parent

    Very wearing...and a bit surreal. (none / 0) (#114)
    by oldpro on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 12:22:12 AM EST
    Can you link them? (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:45:44 PM EST
    Here's one - from the (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:51:59 PM EST
    WaPo.

    It's the cold and calculating nature of the memo that got to me.

    Parent

    Like reading about Nazi experiments (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:54:24 PM EST
    Disgusting.

    Parent
    BTW, Bybee is apparently a Federal Judge (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:01:30 PM EST
    I think he ought to be impeached and prosecuted.

    Parent
    I'd settle for impeached (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:24:43 PM EST
    and disbarred.

    Parent
    Here's the whole package: (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:11:39 PM EST
    NYT

    I don't know why I'm reading these; they are so disturbing.

    Parent

    indeed (none / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:01:49 PM EST
    the meaningful persecution will be in the minds of the voting public.
    let the republicans try to defend this.

    Parent
    I am no good at that (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:48:54 PM EST
    It will be up at the NYTimes probably even now.

    Parent
    Memos are indeed (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by jnicola on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:13:21 PM EST
    up at the NY Times.

    They're horrifying.

    Parent

    MSNBC going to discuss contents (none / 0) (#34)
    by magster on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:45:44 PM EST
    after the commercial.


    Parent
    But won't that also (none / 0) (#25)
    by kmblue on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:43:29 PM EST
    divert our attention and upset the right wing?
    And I'm not being sarcastic, either.

    Parent
    sorry (none / 0) (#55)
    by kmblue on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:00:39 PM EST
    my comment above refers to T and R commission.

    Parent
    Captain, your thinking (none / 0) (#64)
    by KeysDan on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:08:53 PM EST
    seems right to me, given the state of the country and worries about serious division.   However, if "nothing will be gained by laying blame for the past", by prosecution, what would a nice Commission really add?  A "bipartisan" group of elders, say, if it did its job, would be attacked mercilessly by the right wingers, and if it was an "on the one-hand, but on the other" it would still not be satisfactory.  And, it does seem that we are factoring in the right wing response.

    Parent
    The country is already severely divided (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:03:14 PM EST
    and will continue to divide into more groups as long as we don't clean up the messes that were made. We no longer see things as either "Right or Wrong", we have a series of conditions and exceptions creating more and more schools of thought.

    This is one mess that seriously needs to be cleaned up completely. It needs to be fully exposed and perp walked through our judicial system.


    Parent

    Inspector, (none / 0) (#109)
    by KeysDan on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 06:25:23 PM EST
    it is hard to disagree with what you say, but rather than the CIA guys, it would be my hope  that the apparently aborted pursuit of Gonzales, Feith, Haynes and Addington by the Spanish judge be picked up by Holder.  Moreover, Bybe and Yoo should be held accountable for their grotesque legal opinions.

    Parent
    not sure it would really accomplish anything (none / 0) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:12:56 PM EST
    but I would like to see something done.  I would like to see some truth revealed and that seems like one possibly way to go about doing that.
    I have very little faith in "commissions" but the sole of the country needs healing.  not to mention undertaking some repair to the way the world now sees us.


    Parent
    This would (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:44:22 PM EST
    be a huge thing and very helpful. However, do you think it will ever happen? I'm not seeing it right now and the above statement doesn't seem to move things in that direction.

    Parent
    I think congress (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:19:45 PM EST
    could do it without him.


    Parent
    Greenwald is (provisionally) happy. (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Addison on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:42:13 PM EST
    Greenwald:
    If the report about the OLC memos are accurate, Obama will have done exactly the right thing here and will deserve real credit ... one can certainly criticize Obama for vowing that no CIA officials will be prosecuted if they followed DOJ memos (though that vow, notably, does not extend to Bush officials), but -- assuming the reports about redactions are correct -- there is no grounds for criticizing Obama here and substantial grounds for praising him.


    I read that and I agree (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:45:08 PM EST
    I also noticed the absence of a vow about the Bush officials.  prosecuting members of the CIA for following orders would be worse that stupid.
    we, all of us, need the CIA on our side.
    these are dangerous times.

    Parent
    good point n/t (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by CST on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:46:27 PM EST
    All memos (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Addison on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:10:20 PM EST
    Bradbury needs to be prosecuted too (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:13:24 PM EST
    People need to see how it happens (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:22:34 PM EST
    How we justify torture to ourselves.

    I'm sure it is too much to ask for an in depth legal analysis on TV News, but I'm glad it will be available on line here and with Greenwald.

    Well Done (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:30:34 PM EST
    Nice to see Obama et al do the right thing. Now it is time to move on and get the architects of these criminal acts to explain why they should not be in jail. Truth and Reconciliation, time to start the fish fry.

    Nice how the Bybee memo takes the statute's (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:37:57 PM EST
    pain "or" suffering and,without any explanation whatsoever, transforms the term into pain AND suffering.  The subsequent second grade logic then results int he conclusion that because pain and suffering requires the existence of both conditions suffering without pain is OK.  

    Just a plain rewriting of the law even putting aside the dubious conclusion that follows from it.

    I can just imagaine the response I would (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:46:28 PM EST
    have gotten in law school had I taken such liberties in construing a statute.  Yeah, but if the statute said this instead of what it says one might understand it to mean . . .

    Parent
    My Irish history and personal (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by oldpro on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:47:10 AM EST
    proclivity dictates that my middle name is revenge, so I'd like to see T & R.  Problem is, in this country, the Republicans would never allow any reconciliation.  They turn it into tit for tat.....Nixon/Reagan/Ollie North = impeach Clinton.  Get even and payback is all they know or want to know.  Democrats may not want to give them any more food for their voracious appetites.  After all, Americans don't seem to care what the truth is...not really.  The truth about Nixon and Reagan didn't prevent them from electing W.  Twice.

    Body of Lies (3.00 / 2) (#14)
    by NealB on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:35:23 PM EST
    The more time goes on, the more it appears that Mr. Obama cannot distinguish between right and wrong. Why do Republicans complain about him so much?

    Seriously? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:22:32 PM EST
    What are you even talking about now?  

    Parent
    Al-Queda recruitment tool (2.00 / 1) (#104)
    by star on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:24:10 PM EST
    I am a bit conflicted about This release. It is not only US citizens who are going to read it..
    Releasing this document will be a huge help for al-Queda..This statement will be used as ruecruitment tool in swat valley and also to train their guys to with stand CIA interrogation techniques..for I am pretty sure they are still training their guys and USA is still enemy number 1.
    I honestly do not have much sympathy for KSM or Zubaida.. both are perverts and KSM is famous in rural pak for torturing young boys who have mysteriously vanished after visiting with him..
    It is satisfying to see Bush and co squirming or even prosecuted, but at the cost of our country being dragged through mud? I cant say I want a long and detailed enquiry.. trust me outside of USA , people do not diffrentiate hugely between R and D or our internal politics..they will only gloating that US is ashamed of itself, when in truth - inspite of these violation, USA has a much better human rights record than any of the countries who are crying foul on us. Try reading pak newspaper dawn tomorrow..

    I read it again (none / 0) (#5)
    by kmblue on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:26:41 PM EST
    and I'm becoming angry.  A time for "reflection", no.  Action, yes.

    I wish I could believe him... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:28:03 PM EST
    but I tend to think the CIA does what it wants...presidents come and go.  They aren't even constrained by a budget, much less law.

    Really? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:30:17 PM EST
    But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America's ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future.

    There is nothing to be gained?

    Something tells me that when people read the details of the abhorrent, inhumane and abusive actions that were authorized by the American government, that is not an opinion that will be widely shared.

    there possibly ... (none / 0) (#76)
    by wystler on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:23:13 PM EST
    ... might be something to be gained, but when weighted against what stands to be lost, and measured by the probability of such unfortunate outcome ...

    ... nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past.

    reads, at least to me, predictive of a bad outcome, should the administration choose prosecution. yesterday was a blip, compared to the self-righteous indignation and anger that would certainly erupt.

    fearful? perhaps ... a fear of losing a chance at a best outcome on something very important (putting our economic house in order)

    Parent

    Sounds (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:42:36 PM EST
    like the memos are going to be heavily redacted. I guess we'll see.

    Not at all (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:43:32 PM EST
    I have them - hardly any.

    Parent
    pollyanna 1 (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:45:54 PM EST
    cynics 0

    Parent
    What is your source for that? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Addison on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:44:06 PM EST
    Please tell me you are not just making it up.

    Parent
    I was (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:45:10 PM EST
    going from Obama's statement that all this was already known like there was nothing to really be learned from the memos i.e. redacted.

    Parent
    Wrong (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:45:39 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:48:45 PM EST
    then Obama's statement is wrong.

    Parent
    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Addison on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:51:52 PM EST
    First, what was he "wrong" about? Second:

    First, the interrogation techniques described in these memos have already been widely reported. Second, the previous Administration publicly acknowledged portions of the program - and some of the practices - associated with these memos. Third, I have already ended the techniques described in the memos through an Executive Order. Therefore, withholding these memos would only serve to deny facts that have been in the public domain for some time.

    Any normal person's reading of this would show that Obama is saying that since everyone knows pretty much everything anyway, keeping the actual memos secret or heavily redacting them makes no sense.

    I tried reading through the statement multiple times trying to understand how you arrived at the conclusion that it sounded as if the memos were to be heavily redacted, and each time noticed that Obama's reasoning pointed exactly the opposite direction.

    Parent

    Tough read (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:55:29 PM EST
    Truth and Reconciliation Commission is in order.

    Parent
    I stopped at the part (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:34:03 PM EST
    about the insects.  which had some stuff redacted.
    contemplating what was behind that black box was making me queasy.


    Parent
    That part reminded me of "1984" (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:41:57 PM EST
    where Winston's main fear was rats and the interrogators put a cage with rat in it over his face.  This guy's fear was insects.  

    Who is it that says "1984" was intended as a warning, not an instruction manaual?  More than a joke.

    Parent

    makes me (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:47:24 PM EST
    want to put Cheney in a cage with drag queens.

    Parent
    you know (none / 0) (#96)
    by CST on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:49:56 PM EST
    I actually think that's the one issue where Cheney is not so evil.  See Mary.

    Parent
    just because he has not killed (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:52:05 PM EST
    his, um, rather upright and lesbian daughter doesnt mean he would like the drag queens I know.


    Parent
    Good lord... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Thanin on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:39:52 PM EST
    Insects?  Sickening.

    Parent
    I'll pass (none / 0) (#80)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:29:00 PM EST
    and rely on others to summarize.

    I think of Sr. Dianna Ortiz on days like this....And, there but for the grace of God go I.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:55:10 PM EST
    you could interpret it that way and you also could interpret as "well everybody knows it anyway" so why shouldn't we redact it i.e. there's nothing to be gained from NOT redacting it.

    Anyway, if the torture memos are as bad as BTD is saying above then this statement is really weak. He should be talking about the moral bankruptcy of the Bush Administration.

    Parent

    Snore (1.50 / 2) (#100)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:05:56 PM EST
    Or, you could interpret it as Obama being unable to
    do anything right in certain embittered peoples eyes since the primaries.

    Parent
    What is wrong with you? (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:41:27 PM EST
    You've gotten what you want so why are you constantly so miserable? Why do you follow me around and whine and call me names? Obama has failed to live up to even the low expectations I had of him. You should be pressuring him to do the right thing instead of complaining about people who point out his short comings.

    Parent
    that was funny (none / 0) (#106)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:48:59 PM EST
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:50:57 PM EST
    these people remind of the Bush supporters in 2005. I've never seen such a miserable bunch of winners in my entire life. The Obama apologists are giving them a run for their money.

    Parent
    Per Ambinder (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Tony on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 02:52:42 PM EST
    ...the only redactions are the names of the CIA agents involved.

    Parent
    fair (none / 0) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:03:12 PM EST
    on several levels.

    Parent
    I believe (none / 0) (#97)
    by Bemused on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:50:29 PM EST
    some of the redactions contain references to foreign intelligence agencies who were consulted presumably because they have used these techniques.

    Parent
    I just looked up Bybee. Brigham Young (none / 0) (#77)
    by Joelarama on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:24:09 PM EST
    undergrad, BYU JD.  I just finished reading "No Man Knows My HIstory", a biography of the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith, which is a very well-written and -researched.  I became fascinated with Mormons and the various LDS religions after the Utah LDS' role in Prop 8.

    I have no desire to paint with a broad brush and do not suggest that this memo is representative of Mormons and their culture.  But Bybee's attendance at BYU makes me even more fascinated.

    OT, but Jon Krakaeur's (none / 0) (#79)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:28:16 PM EST
    'Under The Banner of Heaven' is an interesting look at Mormon history too, from the standpoint of being able to look at a religion whos beginnings are so well documented.

    Parent
    That's coming on Monday from (none / 0) (#83)
    by Joelarama on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:31:36 PM EST
    Amazon!

    J.K.'s book "Into Thin Air" about the deaths on Everest in the 90s is spellbinding.  I met him once!  

    Parent

    Good for you! I'd love to meet him. (none / 0) (#87)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:36:51 PM EST
    I'm at the point I will read whatever he writes on any topic.

    You won't be disappointed in 'Heaven'. Really thought provoking and well-told.

    Parent

    And, actually the documentation is (none / 0) (#84)
    by Joelarama on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:33:13 PM EST
    quite hard to sift through, because it's pretty clear at least to me that the LDS Church has systematically hidden documents and whitewashed history.

    Parent
    I'm shocked (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:37:41 PM EST
    at such behavior from a Church!

    Parent
    Read the (none / 0) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 04:52:56 PM EST
    book "A Gathering of Saints". It gets into the history of the church and also the ability of one person to rip off the church.

    Parent
    Very much enamored of authority (none / 0) (#91)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:41:42 PM EST
    are today's LDS.  However, as Fawn Brodie shows in No Man, Joseph Smith was nonviolent-- as well as being very unusual....

    Brigham Young, on the other hand, talked of "blood atonement"--a type of blood vengeance.  Utah is one of few states that still executes by firing squad--so that there is "blood spilled" in satisfaction.

    And to paint with even a broader brush, Helmet Huebner, one of the few LDS members who opposed Hitler in Nazi Germany, was excommunicated by the local church, and then executed.  (His excommunication may have been reversed in recent years by the U.S. church.)   The LDS believe in being obedient to governments...

    Bybee needs to be publicly and thoroughly repudiated....

    Parent

    Well, it's not clear how closely Smith (none / 0) (#93)
    by Joelarama on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 03:45:31 PM EST
    directed the Danites, but we know for sure he had no problem destroying the printing press.

    Parent
    Mark Hofmann is fascinating (none / 0) (#115)
    by oldpro on Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 01:26:26 AM EST
    in modern Mormon history...

    Parent
    Is the all of the damning memos? (none / 0) (#113)
    by Bornagaindem on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 09:11:47 PM EST
    Unfortunately given the track record of Obama  we must ask this question.