Torture memos

Been out of pocket for awhile. It's always nice to get "away."

According to these recently-released "torture memos," it appears that we were "this" close to a dictatorship in the United States. Should I be grateful that the Bush administration chose not to unleash the Army on our soil to clamp down on citizens in the U.S.? From the looks of these memos trickling out, thanks to Obama, it appears that we were very close to it.

If Bush felt that we might need to respond to 9/11 like this, they, or he, must have thought that there were multiple terrorist cells on U.S. soil, just waiting to spring on us. If not, then why would they take such extreme measures? Do these memos reveal the lack of depth of information available to them? Were they that clueless about the threat that they were ready to overreact and attack U.S. citizens? Did their authoritarian streak just instantly surface? Are we just fortunate that it was suppressed? There are still a lot of unanswered questions.

Whatever, these memos reveal that the Bush administration was quick to ignore the Constitution and our international agreements, all in the name of "fighting terror." In a very real sense, they violated the Constitution and those international agreements, such as the Geneva Conventions.

One measure of a nations strength should be how we react during times of great stress or crisis. To me, Bush failed that test miserably.

I think this is another instance where I differ from Republicans. If a Democrat had done what Bush did, I would be just as upset and demanding that those responsible be held accountable. Believe it. Instead, I hear lots of Republicans excusing Bush's actions, since we were in a time of "crisis." I have little doubt that those same Republicans would be screaming for the Democrats head if in fact these acts had occurred under a Democrat, instead of excusing their actions as a response to 9/11.

For me, Bush's actions were a clear violation of the law, and no man, President or otherwise, is supposed to be above the law. Period. People probably deserve to go to jail over this. No matter who they are. Will we pursue this?

We as a people and as a country should not be allowed to howl for other countries leaders heads when they violate rights or torture people, and then excuse our own behavior. We are already gross hypocrites on the world stage. Let's not make it worse than it already is. Let's investigate and prosecute where necessary, wherever the chips may fall.

Here's a recent NY Times editorial on the memos. Any Republicans out there, I expect you will probably quit reading at this point.

The Tortured Memos
Published: March 3, 2009

We had two powerful reactions this week after the C.I.A. admitted to destroying 92 videotapes of interrogations that may involve torture and the Justice Department released several of the legal manifestos that former President George W. Bush used to justify mangling the Constitution after Sept. 11, 2001.

We were horrified to be reminded that the nation still has not plumbed the depths of the Bush administration’s abuses. At the same time, it was a relief to see President Obama beginning to make good on his promise of greater transparency.

While the C.I.A.’s admission was made in legal proceedings, the government voluntarily released the Justice Department memos. A lot more transparency is needed. The documents do not include memos justifying harsh interrogations nor those justifying Mr. Bush’s decision to authorize illegal eavesdropping on Americans.

The Bush administration admitted last year that the chief of the spy agency’s clandestine service had ordered the destruction of tapes showing the interrogations of two Al Qaeda suspects, who may have been subject to the torture technique known as waterboarding.

But the Central Intelligence Agency redacted the number of tapes destroyed when it provided an accounting for a federal lawsuit that seeks release of its interrogation records. On Monday, the Justice Department said there were 92 — a stunning amount of evidence-shredding that needs further scrutiny.

The released memos were written by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which is supposed to ensure policies comply with the Constitution and the law. They make it chillingly clear how quickly that office was rededicated to finding ways for Mr. Bush to evade, twist or ignore both. Some low points:

¶ In an Oct. 23, 2001, memo, John C. Yoo, then a Justice Department lawyer, explained how Mr. Bush could ignore the Fourth Amendment and the Posse Comitatus Act and deploy the military within the United States in “anti-terrorist operations.” In the same memo, Mr. Yoo argued that Mr. Bush could also suspend First Amendment rights to free speech and a free press.

¶ On March 13, 2002, Jay Bybee, the head of the office at the time, wrote that Mr. Bush could ignore the Geneva Conventions and the anti-torture treaty. Mr. Bybee, who now has a lifetime seat as a judge on a federal court, said Mr. Bush was free to send prisoners to countries known to employ torture — a practice known as extraordinary rendition — as long as there was no agreement to do the torturing.

¶ On Jan. 15, 2009, five days before Mr. Bush left office, Steven G. Bradbury, the head of the counsel’s office in Mr. Bush’s second term, repudiated the earlier memos and tried to excuse them by saying they were made “in a time of great danger and under extraordinary time pressure.” They were, but that should have led honest lawyers to exercise extra prudence, not to rush into sweeping away this country’s most cherished rights.

The Justice Department’s internal ethics office is reviewing these and other memos and trying to decide whether political appointees knowingly twisted their interpretations of the law to provide legal cover for decisions made by the White House. At least two Congressional committees are, quite rightly, also looking into these issues.

Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is holding a hearing on Wednesday into the creation of a bipartisan inquiry into the range of Mr. Bush’s abuses and has raised the possibility of granting immunity to witnesses. We are skeptical about immunity, but we are looking forward to hearing a careful debate about how to proceed toward the essential goal: providing Americans with as much truth and accountability as possible about their government’s actions.

The original editorial is here.