Thursday, October 4, 2007


Torturing Logic to Condone Torture

Gonzales is gone, but his specter still haunts the nation. His tortured logic and amoral interpretation of the law will take at least a decade to root out.

In 2004, the Justice Department, under the leadership of Attorney General John Ashcroft made public the declaration that torture was “abhorrent” in a legal opinion rendered in December of that year.

Ashcroft would depart Justice right after the inauguration, and Alberto “Torture Boy” Gonzales would be ensconced in the Justice Department, and like Dean Wormer’s “Double Secret Probation” he quickly and quietly issued another opinion, and it was a very different document indeed. It was an expansive endorsement of the harshest, most vigorous interrogation techniques ever employed by the CIA.

Officials who were briefed on the new protocols said that for the first time, explicit authorization to inundate suspects with a medley of painful physical tactics, such as stress positions and head slaps; as well as temperature extremes, waterboarding, and psychological trauma were allowed.

An especially harsh version of the dope-slap became official American policy.

(Keep Reading)



Torture Boy gleefully endorsed the barbarism of what came to be known as the Gonzales-Yoo Torture Doctine over the objections of Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey. Mr. Comey, who had been loyal to AG John Ashcroft and the Constitution was leaving his job after battling the White House over what he considered out-of-bounds legal reasoning. Befpre he left, speaking about the Gonzales opinion, Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.

But it didn’t stop there.

Later that year, as Congress moved toward outlawing “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, the Justice Department issued another secret opinion, one most lawmakers did not know existed, current and former officials said. The Justice Department document declared that none of the C.I.A. interrogation methods violated that standard.

The classified opinions, never previously disclosed, are a hidden legacy of President Bush’s second term and Mr. Gonzales’s tenure at the Justice Department, where he moved quickly to align it with the White House after a 2004 rebellion by staff lawyers that had thrown policies on surveillance and detention into turmoil.

Over the last two years, congress and the Supreme Court have time after time imposed limits on interrogations, and the administration responded by dropping the most extreme techniques – but the 2005 Gonzales opinions remained in effect – in fact, they are still in effect to this day.

A White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, said Wednesday that he would not comment on any legal opinion related to interrogations. Mr. Fratto added, “We have gone to great lengths, including statutory efforts and the recent executive order, to make it clear that the intelligence community and our practices fall within U.S. law” and international agreements.

More than two dozen current and former officials involved in counterterrorism were interviewed over the past three months about the opinions and the deliberations on interrogation policy. Most officials would speak only on the condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the documents and the C.I.A. detention operations they govern.

Over two dozen current and former counterterrorism officials were interviewed over the past three months about the torture doctrine and the official documents. Officils would only speak on condition of anonymity, but overall what emerged was a portrait of Gonzales in yellow. A craven, ineffectual coward, unable to differentiate between his role as the President’s counsel and his role as Attorney General. A spineless, simpering sycophant, unable to resist pressure from Vice President Dick Cheney or his henchman David Addington.

It isn’t as though we need more evidence of the perfidy and mendacity of the most corrupt, inept and criminal presidency in the history of the nation, but there it is. It was utterly foolish for Nancy Pelosi to proclaim a year ago that “impeachment was off the table.” It is cowardly of my congressman to imploringly tell me that “history will impeach this administration.” Well that’s all well and good, but these fuckers are thugs and criminals – war criminals – and they deserve to be held accountable now, not in the pages of history. They need to answer to us, now, not to be a footnote in our grandchildrens history texts fifty years from now.





There's more: "Torturing Logic to Condone Torture" >>

Monday, August 13, 2007


The Jokes Write Themselves, II

Abu G is off to Iraq to teach the Iraqi Justice Department how to spy on Iraqis, loosen the definition of torture, and purge of federal prosecutors who refuse to fix elections:

The Justice Department said that Gonzales arrived in Baghdad on Saturday for his third trip to Iraq to meet with department officials who have been there to help fashion the country's legal system.

"I am pleased to see firsthand ... the progress that the men and women of the Justice Department have made to rebuild Iraq's legal system and law enforcement infrastructure," Gonzales said in a statement released by the department.

His optimistic assessment came despite the frequent sectarian lawlessness and killings in the country.




There's more: "The Jokes Write Themselves, II" >>

Monday, July 30, 2007


Fredo's Impeachment (Thank you Jay Inslee)

About time. (from Think Progress):

Inslee (D-WA) is introducing legislation that would require the House Judiciary
Committee and the House of Representatives to begin an impeachment investigation into Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in the wake of his damaging testimony last week.

While these aren't articles of impeachment or anything, they would require the House to pursue an investigation as to whether or not they are necessary. Ol' Fredo seems pretty deserving.

The fact that Gonzales has survived this long is pretty pathetic. It's about time Congress started flexing some serious muscle.

However...

When it comes to impeaching Bush or Cheney, I think I am of like mind with Josh Marshall.
I've always been against the movement to impeach President Bush. I take this
position not because he hasn't done plenty to merit it. My reasons are
practical. Minor reasons are that it's late in the president's term and that I
think impeachment itself is toxic to our political system -- though it can be
less toxic than the high officials thrown from office. My key reason, though, is
that Congress at present can't even get to the relatively low threshold of votes
required to force the president's hand on Iraq. So to use an analogy which for
whatever reason springs readily to my mind at this point in my life, coming out
for impeachment under present circumstances is like being so frustrated that you
can't crawl that you come out for walking. In various ways it seems to elevate
psychic satisfactions above progress on changing a series of policies that are
doing daily and almost vast damage to our country. Find me seventeen Republican
senators who are going to convict President Bush in a senate trial.

I know it's important to stick to one's convictions, but I don't think a Bush/Cheney impeachment is practical, and unless the House moves forward with 67 Senators in support, it will be viewed as a partisan move and will, I think, hurt Democrats in the long run. More importantly, though, as Marshall points out, impeachments are toxic and the reasons for drafting such articles had better be pretty damn explicit, otherwise it's just another partisan move which does nothing to strengthen Congressional institutions (which is, I believe, the point of impeachment proceedings). When it comes to Gonzales, though, I think the case is much stronger, and support in the Senate looks as though it might follow through. Also, it's just damn prudent; Gonzales has lost the confidence of the Senate, and the public more generally, and it looks like he's perjured himself and crippled the efficacy of the Justice Department. It seems to me, then, that impeachment in his case has strong legal and normative backing.




There's more: "Fredo's Impeachment (Thank you Jay Inslee)" >>