On January 25, 2002 Alberto Gonzales [then the White House counsel, he is now (2006) the Attorney General, sent a memo to President Bush arguing for a “new paradigm” of interrogation, declaring that the war on terror “renders obsolete” the “strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners” required by the Geneva conventions, which were ratified by the United States in 1955. (O) "In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions." […] your policy of providing humane treatment to enemy detainees gives us the credibility to insist on like treatment for our soldiers." [ed. note-HA,HA,HA] (RR) (DD) [See also August 1, 2002] [For information about John Yoo’s testimony, see (DD), pg. xvi] [16] “Some State Department lawyers charge that Gonzales misrepresented so many legal considerations and facts (including hard conclusions by State's Southeast Asia bureau about the nature of the Taliban) that one lawyer considers the memo to be "an ethical breach." In response, a senior White House official says Gonzales's memo was only a "draft" and just one part of an extensive decision-making process in which all views were aired.” [75]

In April 2004, “Amid the furor over the Abu Ghraib Prison photos Gonzales insisted to reporters that the "torture" memo of Aug. 1 and other documents then making headlines were little more than "irrelevant" legal theorizing.”

In early January 2009 H. Marshall Jarrett, chief of the Justice Department Office of Professional Responsibility issues a draft report of their investigation into senior Bush administration OLC lawyers who approved waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics. The investigation began in late 2003. [See December 2003] “But then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey and his deputy, Mark Filip, strongly objected to the draft, according to the [two knowledgeable] sources. […] OPR is now [February 2009] seeking to include the responses before a final version is presented to Attorney General Eric Holder. “The matter is under review," said [Obama Administration] Justice spokesman Matthew Miller.” A former Bush administration lawyer says: "OPR is not competent to judge [the opinions by Justice attorneys]. They're not constitutional scholars." [76] See February 16, 2009.

http://www.webdsi.com/jebbie/tlpage44.html

I'm learning a lot from the discussion.

One thing is clearer than ever, though: our "representatives" in Congress must be made to actually represent US.

Enjoy your evening.

And thanks for the conversation, Everyone.

Friday, February 27, 2009

Support Coalition to Prosecute the War Criminals

Yesterday, the National Lawyers Guild and a diverse coalition of groups and individuals released the following statement:

Statement on Prosecution of Former High Officials

NEW YORK - February 24 - We urge Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a non-partisan independent Special Counsel to immediately commence a prosecutorial investigation into the most serious alleged crimes of former President George W. Bush, former Vice President Richard B. Cheney, the attorneys formerly employed by the Department of Justice whose memos sought to justify torture, and other former top officials of the Bush Administration. [...]"

There's a long list of signatures including The Center for Constitutional Rights, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Naomi Wolfe and Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

Link:

http://valtinsblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/support-coalition-to-prosecute-war.html

Ain't THAT the truth!

Thanks for the heads-up, sysprog!

That was quite a funny typo...it was a typo, wasn't it? Or am I showing my ignorance [again]?

That's too funny...it DOES seem to fit, somehow. Thanks for explaining.

This is the real danger: that hundreds of years of social progress will be undone for the sake of a phoney war.-Bloomsbury

The producers of a unique documentary sent me a DVD copy of their independent documentary, "The Warning." They hoped they would get a good review, and they needn't have worried.

"The Warning," written, produced, and directed by Joseph P. Sottile, consists entirely of interviews with five well-known liberal authors (see below). Rather than questions and answers, the interviewees are allowed to speak for themselves. Occasionally, they even read appropriate selections from their works. […]

http://valtinsblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/terrorism.html

Truth to Power TV: “The Warning”

The Warning exposes the dangerous excesses of last eight years and warns against allowing those changes to go unchallenged during the next administration. Five authors, during extensive interviews, uncover the political and economic forces behind this radical transformation of American democracy. […]

http://truthtopower.tv/index.htm

Failing the test-Krugman

It’s a depressing spectacle: on both sides of the Atlantic, policy-makers just keep falling short — and the odds that this slump really will turn into Great Depression II keep rising.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/failing-the-test/#more-1483

Also: Equilibrium decadence (wonkish)-Krugman

Brad DeLong is exercised about William Poole’s technological regress. I was getting at something like the same thing in my Dark Age post. Here are some further thoughts about the sad intellectual history of the past few decades.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/equilibrium-decadence-wonkish/

And "Economics Research on Systemic Risks"-eRioste

[...] One point that came to mind upon reading the paper is this - what are the principal sources of funding for economics research? How much of it is funded by universities themselves versus government agencies versus the private sector (especially the financial sector)? How much of the research is dependent on the cooperation of entities (whether government or industry) that have a stake in the implications of the findings? [...]"

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/013858.php

emptywheel:

But I can't help but imagine that this speech was designed to reassure the bankers that they--like the telecoms that were being actively discussed--would be protected from legal liability for their role in helping the government select targets for illegal wiretapping.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/03/02/retroactive-immunity-for-the-banksters-too/#more-3723