Looks like we are going to take the advice of Nooners when it comes to torture prosecutions:
A special prosecutor has recommended a criminal probe into the deaths of two prisoners in CIA custody but cleared U.S. interrogators of wrongdoing in 99 others, the Justice Department announced Tuesday.
“I have accepted his recommendation to conduct a full criminal investigation regarding the death in custody of two individuals,” Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement issued Thursday afternoon. “Those investigations are ongoing. The department has determined that an expanded criminal investigation of the remaining matters is not warranted.”
The special prosecutor, John Durham, examined the treatment of 101 prisoners in U.S. custody, not all of whom were held by the CIA. In a message to employees, outgoing CIA chief Leon Panetta said the agency will “cooperate fully” in the remaining cases — but said they already had been reviewed by career prosecutors who did not pursue charges.
A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said one of the cases is the 2003 death of the “ice man,” Manadel al-Jamadi, an inmate who died after being interrogated in Iraq’s notorious Abu Ghraib prison. Among the photos at the heart of the 2004 scandal over the abuse of Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib were snapshots of U.S. soldiers posing over al-Jamadi’s remains, which had been packed on ice.
Some things in life need to be kept mysterious.
celticdragonchick
So we keep on walking by, while downing a couple of vodka martinis.
Yep.
AAA Bonds
In my opinion, this country has never come to grips with how the Court decided the election on a party-line vote in 2000, and the most noticeable symptom is that Cheney and Bush aren’t in adjacent cells.
There’s also effective inoculation: Republicans made impeachment seem so farcical and groan-worthy with Clinton that we failed to apply it properly against Bush. The public sentiment was certainly there in his second term.
BGinCHI
Thank God that shrill Feingold has been replaced by national treasure Ron Johnson.
Thanks Wisconsin.
Morbo
Two’s better than zero, but they got the wrong two.
jeffreyw
The charge to the prosecutor was to look at a very narrow question: “Did the interrogations exceed authorization”. Did these authorizations exceed the law? Sure, but that is not the question they wanted answered.
AAA Bonds
If prosecutions stay below a certain pay-grade on this one, they’re just shadow plays.
Thanks for keeping a critical eye, John, because we all know the propaganda effect this was intended to have and what Justice is trying to cover up right now: continued illegal practices that will only lead to further deadly crimes like these – if not by this administration, then by the next one or the one after that.
Svensker
This makes me very sad.
Tonal Crow
We’ve got to look forward and not backward, right? So it shouldn’t surprise anyone that Obama has ended all federal criminal prosecutions and disbanded the FBI. Oh, wait….
ETA: In other words, criminal law is for the little people.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
.
.
George W. Bush/Barack Obama Torture Regimes – Never Forget.
.
.
Derf
“Some things in life need to be kept mysterious.”
Like John Galt Cole’s curiously naive political views combined with his Obama concern trolling.
Ban any IP addresses lately John? How’s that workin for ya? Seems your IT skills are equally naive.
arguingwithsignposts
AAA Bonds
Actually, the GOP has held a grudge since Nixon got ran out of town before his ass was thrown out (including Rehnquist). All the Repubs responsible for burning down the village had their roots in Nixon. And they have never forgotten.
arguingwithsignposts
@Derf, thanks for coming out to troll so I can have a fresh reminder to update the pie filter.
Scott
So “Derf” is Matoko’s new screen name?
eemom
the other day I read that the Obama Justice Dept dropped a deportation proceeding against a gay man who is married to a US citizen.
Also that the Obama NLRB is poised to adopt new rules making it easier for private employees to unionize.
Greenwald never writes about those things. Funny that.
The Dangerman
Surely, the poisonous political environment in which we find ourselves entangled (economic meltdown, double dip, intransigent Congress) would be so very much better if we had only prosecuted Bush and Cheney for torture.
Get a grip; first we clean up the economic situation, then perhaps we go after those matters for which there is no Statute of Limitations. No reason to burn the house down in order to save it.
Chris
@ Scott
Methinks ’tis. Clever of her. Why troll under one name when you can troll under several?
AAA Bonds
@arguingwithsignposts:
True, true. They thought Nixon was framed or that his crooks were the last line against the Reds, and so they figured the best way to respond would be to frame up the first Democratic President they possibly could (i.e., the first one who didn’t immediately follow Nixon-Ford).
Now, their dirty tricks in the 1990s have everyone thinking about impeachment as Clinton’s penis, rather than Nixon’s brutal thugs, which is the more appropriate analogy here.
When an empty man-shaped shell like Reagan or W. Bush came along that Nixon’s thugs could hide inside, they piled in, to pour out later into America’s institutions like murderous clowns from a shitty car.
That’s how we ended up with those pictures of a man on ice, tortured to death by U.S. intelligence.
AAA Bonds
@arguingwithsignposts:
True, true. They thought Nixon was framed or that his crooks were the last line against the Reds, and so they figured the best way to respond would be to frame up the first Democratic President they possibly could (i.e., the first one who didn’t immediately follow Nixon-Ford).
Now, their dirty tricks in the 1990s have everyone thinking about impeachment as Clinton’s ding dong, rather than Nixon’s brutal thugs, who are the appropriate analogy here.
When an empty man-shaped shell like Reagan or W. Bush came along that Nixon’s thugs could hide inside, they piled in, to pour out later into America’s institutions like murderous clowns from a shitty car.
That’s how we ended up with those pictures of a man on ice, tortured to death by U.S. intelligence.
arguingwithsignposts
@Scott, @Chris – no, m_c’s new name is rubella or something. And she’s nothing if not consistent in her notes. I’d be shocked if she could pull off a multi-troll.
Yutsano
Not quite. Derf is his own unique pile of bitter who thinks he’s under JC’s skin. It’s pretty funny to watch. But he is not our dear sweet naive fake Muslin with the high opinion of herself.
AAA Bonds
Make no mistake, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and John Ashcroft killed Manadel al-Jamadi, along with plenty of others. Anyone who denies that is complicit in covering up the crime.
AAA Bonds
You ever notice how, since Nixon, all the Democratic Presidents have been bright people but the majority of the Republican presidents (at least) have been the very definition of “useful idiot”?
It solves a lot of the “Nixon problems”. People could genuinely believe that Reagan had no fucking clue that he had authorized selling weapons to nun-killers in a pact with the Ayatollah.
No one could possibly believe that Nixon was unaware of his crimes; even critics had trouble believing that Reagan was aware of anything whatsoever.
That’s what motivates the “teleprompter” shit with Obama: Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. know exactly what insecurities make their audience squirm.
Linda Featheringill
I think that the DOJ might be looking at what was illegal as opposed to what was immoral.
Now if you think the people handing out orders acted illegally, you should go after them. We will never instigate criminal proceedings against the Bush White House but some sort of truth and reconciliation would be welcome. We probably won’t do that, either.
I think that not holding Bush & Co. responsible for what they ordered is probably immoral.
AAA Bonds
One of my old favorites was to make a Vince Foster murder post on a right-wing blog and link up that picture of Manadel al-Jamadi as “the proof”.
Funny that when the media can actually produce a body . . .
Maude
This also goes to the John Yoo bit of telling the CIA that it was legal to do what they were calling enhanced interogations.
The contimuing investigation is a good sign, not capitulation.
Bush really damaged the country.
Yutsano
This is how a mob prosecution starts: you go after the little fish. The little fish roll on the bigger fish. On and on up the chain. I don’t think these two prosecutions were chosen at random.
WereBear
Indeed, that was my take.
Precisely. At pointed out above (don’t want the dreaded 3 links) there is no statute of limitations on certain things.
Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted)
CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!
Derf
“Not quite. Derf is his own unique pile of bitter who thinks he’s under JC’s skin. It’s pretty funny to watch. But he is not our dear sweet naive fake Muslin with the high opinion of herself.”
Yikes Yutsano or shall we call you batshitnutzano, to know such totally useless details about totally meaningless things on a backwoods swamp blog site is quite…urrrum..impressive…lol.
Maybe you should get out and do stuff. Nothing fancy, just basic things associated with having a life.
arguingwithsignposts
Trollfecta!
Villago Delenda Est
“Enhanced interrogation techniques” is a term that was coined in the late 30’s by a certain central European totalitarian regime.
Just sayin’.
Tonal Crow
Not really. Torture is illegal, period, even if done under “lawful” orders. At Nuremberg we successfully prosecuted many Nazis who followed orders that were lawful under German law. Indeed the plea “I was only following orders” thus became known as “The Nuremberg Defense”.
Also, of course, Obama has refused to investigate the head of the snake, even though it has admitted authorizing torture on national television.
These failures undermine the concept that justice should apply to all, even the most powerful, and thereby undermines the concept that we the people are the ultimate sovereigns. It also ironically undermines the CIA’s effectiveness, since the operatives’ bosses get off scot-free while the operatives sometimes get prosecuted.
Pococurante
@8 Tonal Crow
“ETA”? Not in the lexicon. Definition please.
arguingwithsignposts
Edited To Add
ETA: to differentiate original comment material from material added later via the Edit window which, unlike the “Reply” button, still exists.
eemom
edited to add
Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted)
@ eesmarm:
With all due respect, that being none, if you had a brain you would know that the press in a healthy functioning democracy is SUPPOSED to be adversarial and skeptical to those in power. There are plenty of other avenues, god knows, thru which the Obama administration can get out the word about its many, many, many fine policies and actions.
But the press and reporters SHOULD stay apart from, and suspicious of, government. Leave the media/powerful ass kissing to Joe Klein and Weigel in Aspen.
Did you learn nothing from what happened after 9/11 and the subsequent media/gov. love fest that led to Iraq and every fucking other disaster of the last ten years?
BTW, it continues to be very telling that you obsess over Greenwald even now, after all this time. You hate him. You’re jealous. Let it go…
eemom
SAME OLD SAME OLD WITH TIMMEH TEH TROLL
eemom
oh timlet. You are such a cute little idiot.
Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted)
Yes, same old: eemom posts stupid, bitter comment. Tim dissents and questions. eesmarm answers with more stupid.
Question, for the hundredth time: What is your definition of a troll? I mean, other than someone who disagrees with you and whom you are unable to beat down with bile?
You BJ kool kid wannabes throw around the term so frequently that it has lost any meaning it might once have had.
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
the wider the expanded criminal probe, the more chance to show that such criminal behavior was a feature, not a bug. as a feature, then one has to wonder if the feature was directed from above. its not hard to believe there would be someone who is setting guidelines and then telling people to break then in the same sentence.
aisce
@ yutsano
not at random, eh? what gave you that idea?
it’s not like they tortured two people to death or anything.
look at how proud everybody is that murder is still an occasionally prosecutable offense. fantastic.
arguingwithsignposts
Not speaking for eemom, T, I, but
Someone who comes in with their talking points, name-calling and obvious aversion to facts, reason, logic, political reality and refuses to back down or admit they could be wrong in the face of contrary evidence.
Or someone like Derf who’s just a one-note asshole with his John Galt Cole schtick. (Uncle Clarence Thomas, also too)
ymmv
ETA: Any commenter who non-snarkily calls others “Obots” in response to an individual reply or says they worship “Dear Leader” because someone disagrees with them about a particular political tactic, position, or approach to governance.
Trurl
“talking point” = criticism of Obama I can’t refute
“troll” = critic of Obama I can’t refute
Hope this helps.
arguingwithsignposts
@Trurl –
You shouting “LALALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU, LET ME REPEAT MY FALSE STATEMENTS AND HALF-TRUTHS” doesn’t mean nobody’s refuted you.
Derf
Happy to make your aquaintance ‘arguingwiththemselves’
Let me tell you a little story. A story about someone who once posted here freely. Not as a troll but as someone critical of people like John Galt Cole. Now John Galt Cole, in his typically overly simplistic and naive way of thinking, decided that banning people would solve the problem of having (gasp) critics.
So of course this brilliant tactic has the opposite effect of what he wants. Instead of cleaning things up it only makes things worse. He is effectively turning legit posters into trolls.
So to sum it up. John Galt Coles ridiculously overly simplistic and naive views of the world, politics, life etc. are being mirrored in his administration of this site. Of course I am MORE than happy to go out of my way to point that out at ever opportunity.
I will CONTINUE…unabated, to call him JOHN GALT COLE until he has something good to say about Obama and the military wrt Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya. Now before you go calling me naive for thinking that is ever going to happen. Have no worries because I know it will NEVER happen.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
.
.
@41 arguingwithdumbasapost
Bitch, please. I’m always concise and on-topic. You, however, took my name in vain by coming in with your talking points, name-calling and obvious aversion to facts to… wait for it… troll for a response. Therefore, the evidence is in, and in my judgement arguingwithsignposts is pronounced guilty of being a troll by his own definition as well as the definition of this court. You are hereby sentenced to even more of my balloonbagger-popping commentary and analysis. That reminds me – Ginni, get your ass in here tootsweet!
.
.
Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted)
Are you esmarm’s spokesmodel? Is she on the toilet again?
If you paid any attention, you’d know that I gave in to my darker urges for name calling LONG AFTER I first became the target for regular shouts of TROLL and other, more obscene, names. eesmarm is among the worst in that regard. Fuck that noise. I can dish it out too.
Secondly, everything you accuse me of is readily applicable to all you Obots who seem to think BJ is a Democratic Party Blog. Talk about talking points! hahahahaha It seems your primary goal is to praise Obama and stifle dissent. Newsflash: we already have a republican party. Why don’t you join it?
JWL
The “advise of Nooners”?
More like the orders of the President of the United States, bubba.
(I didn’t mention his name because I know that upsets you).
Svensker
Where’s Cousin Eddie and his septic tank hose when ya need him?
arguingwithsignposts
@UCT, T, I, and derf. there’s a pie filter. youre in mine. youre welcome to put me in yours.
4jkb4ia
This is supposed to be a torture thread and I am laughing at the epic fail because it became about trolls. Not that I should talk.
Tony J
So this is like one of those infamous (over here) ‘Inquiries’ we had when Blair was on his throne?
Announce an investigation into ‘what happened’.
Narrow its remit to investigating whether or not people involved may have – felt – they had legal cover for what they were doing.
Deny that narrowing the remit in this way makes the investigation pointless, and reject any notion that you’re just setting up a whitewash you can use to claim “all these questions have already been answered”.
Announce that they investigation has cleared everyone (important) of wrongdoing and so proves that all these questions have already been answered.
Ignore the issue.
Worked over here.
Chris
Yeah, I’m still somewhat stunned that the Blair government didn’t pay a higher price for its cooperation with George Bush, given the extent of the unpopularity of the war in the U.K. (Everywhere other than the U.S, for that matter).
Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted)
No, thanks. You go right ahead. I don’t really find it necessary to block out people who disagree with me, no matter how annoying. When I’m not in the mood to engage, I just breeze on by.
But I think pie filters are very helpful with those of a delicate, overly sensitive nature, or who just don’t like opinions other than their own, or who are uncomfortable with shades of gray. So as I said, you go right ahead.
I also don’t believe you’ll filter anyone. You’re full of shit.
4jkb4ia
@52: Worse than that. As of now, the scope of the investigation doesn’t include anyone important. It was an investigation into the destruction of the torture tapes originally, and has not fingered the people who gave the order to do that.
The FDL equivalent of this thread would be absolutely self-righteous with “Obama sucks” and “Holder sucks”. But it would not be about trolls. The posters would understand this was important.
eemom
well, yes and no. Yes, it is a serious topic that ought not to have been derailed by trollery.
However. As far as troll threads go it is hardly a failure. To the contrary, witness the splendid spectacle of two sets of equally tedious, one-note trolls peddling their trollish wares from OPPOSITE ends of the political spectrum: Derf, the love-Obama-or die-Cole on one side, and Lil Timmeh and Uncle Weirdo, Obama is the antichrist on the other.
It is quite impressive and a mark of John Cole’s bloggerific success that he attracts such a balanced array of trolls.
Gravenstone
Alas, I see my comment got blown up in the 404 error that happened when I tried to submit it.
No, Derf is our own unimaginative and conspicuously unintelligent Fred. By his own admission a week or so back. And yeah, this thread certainly got overrun with the resident troll patrol, didn’t it?
Tonal Crow
@eemom:
Your first post on this thread:
@eemon:
Hmm. Also, none of your other posts in this thread discuss torture. Hmm. Munched and mumbled a bare old bone. ETA: Too late!
eemom
torture sucks.
burnspbesq
@Linda Feathergill:
Close, but not quite. They are proceeding on the slam dunk cases, where they are highly confident that they have enough admissible evidence to get convictions. Any case file that doesn’t meet that standard is going to get flushed.
And while I may not agree with that posture, I certainly understand it, and I’ll bet you do, too. The adverse impact of an acquittal in a case like this is incalculable. The vast majority of people will forget about the 99 cases that are getting flushed by next Tuesday, or Wednesday at the latest. An acquittal will live forever in the minds of people who already don’t like us.
Elliecat
June was Torture Awareness Month. A quick look at the BJ archives for posts on Torture in June came up with 0.
Perhaps someone remarked in an Open Thread that June 26 was International Day Against Torture and in Support of Torture Victims. (If they did, I missed it and I don’t have time to search.)
I’m just saying….
ETA: … maybe there’s something people could be doing besides lamenting or declaring Obama King Torturer or whatever.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
.
.
@60 burnspbesq
Excuse me, but the correct answer is, “Prosecute all the cases, from the bottom to the top, and let the chips fall where they may. If citizens of the United States have committed illegal actions, or their fellow citizens fail to fairly prosecute, try and convict them despite reasonable evidence of illegal action, then they should all suffer the consequences.” It used to be called “The American Way” in all the advertising.
.
.
arguingwithsignposts
for T, I above – I don’t have a pie filter on mobile browser, so unfortunately, your poo-flinging gets through. And just so you don’t have to wonder, the incredibly naive, thick, dumbass statement above is exhibit #135380987 why you idiots get the filter.
The Moar You Know
Just keep walking, everyone. Nothing to see here.
Tonal Crow
I think the correct answer is much closer to “prosecute every case in which probable cause to suspect torture exists” than “prosecute only the low-level slam-dunk cases”. Prosecutorial discretion is one thing, but putting fear of Republican backlash over justice is another. It fails not only justice, but also, ironically, politics — by encouraging Republicans to throw fits when justice is pursued. We’ve got to stop paying ransom.
burnspbesq
@Tonal Crow:
You’ve misunderstood my comment.
I could care fuck-all about Republicsn backlash. That’s guaranteed no matter what cases are brought or how they come out. I’m concerned about not doing further damage to our standing in the world.
burnspbesq
@Uncle Clarence:
Noble sentiment, eloquently expressed. We both know you don’t mean a word of it.
Tonal Crow
@burnspbesq:
How would a failed prosecution in a legally meritorious case cause that damage? I see, rather, that not bringing charges that are well merited — as against Bush and Cheney — damages our international standing by showing that we not only tolerate torture, we tolerate it at the highest levels of our government, and we tolerate our leaders rubbing our faces in the fact that they do it. Worse, it shows that a significant portion of our population likes torture, and that the rest of us are hesitant to rebuke them by setting the adult example that they so desperately need.
burnspbesq
@Tonal Crow:
The important audience for these trials (if any trials take place) is in countries where the notion of an independent judiciary is a pipe dream. Those folks will assume that the cases are pre-wired, because that’s their only frame of reference. An acquittal, or even a jury that hangs because of one bat-guano-crazy juror, will be seen as government support for mistreatment of detainees, not as the result of a non-rigged system where shit sometimes happens.
Tonal Crow
@burnspbesq:
Whether or not that’s so, a fortiori Bush’s televised embrace of torture is and will be “seen as government support for mistreatment of detainees”, as is and will our refusal to prosecute him for it. Against that background, everything else is pretty much noise.
sparky
to the extent anyone is going to stand up to the US of torture, it will have to be the ECJ. will they? perhaps, but probably only after China calls a few notes and exposes this shrinking empire for the ugly sham it is.
Tim Connor
And of course, we can’t hold the President responsible.
He only runs the executive branch.