What's In Those Torture Memos?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 07:57:40 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By now, everyone knows about the United States' torture policy. What we do not know expressly is who precisely was involved. We know that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, CIA Director Tenet, his deputy John Brennan (now an Obama NSC deputy), Yoo, Bybee and many others were involved. The details are important and need to be investigated of course, but the big push to not release three torture memos seems a strange place to draw the line. And yet it is being reported that Obama deputy John Brennan has cajoled CIA Director Leon Panetta to join him in opposing the release of these memos despite the approval of Attorney General Holder and now it is being reported that the Republican Senate caucus is threatening to go nuclear if the memos are released:

Senate Republicans are now privately threatening to derail the confirmation of key Obama administration nominees for top legal positions by linking the votes to suppressing critical torture memos from the Bush era. A reliable Justice Department source advises me that Senate Republicans are planning to “go nuclear” over the nominations of Dawn Johnsen as chief of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice and Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh as State Department legal counsel if the torture documents are made public. The source says these threats are the principal reason for the Obama administration’s abrupt pullback last week from a commitment to release some of the documents. A Republican Senate source confirms the strategy. It now appears that Republicans are seeking an Obama commitment to safeguard the Bush administration’s darkest secrets in exchange for letting these nominations go forward.

The question is why? As good as Johnsen and Koh are, assuming that the Republican could hold such a filibuster, which I think is not even remotely possible, why would they do it? There are other strong possibilities for those positions and the Republicans would have to embrace torture again. Do they really want to do that?

More importantly, does President Obama want to embrace acceptance of torture as a legitimate policy, even if he has promised to not allow it in his Administration?

The fact is the story will continue to come out and the issue is what side of the torture question people are going to come out on. President Obama needs to make clear that he stands against torture as a legitimate policy.

He must order these memos released.

Speaking for me only

< More On The Geithner Plan | William Black Responds >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

What's In Those Torture Memos? | 34 comments (34 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

If Obama caves on this (5.00 / 8) (#1)
by oldpro on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 08:16:18 AM EST

he will be hostage for the rest of his presidency.

I do not see how he can do anything but release these memos now that the R strategy is public.

Bring it on.

Will McConnell also hold his breath (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by ruffian on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 09:14:12 AM EST

until his face turns blue?

You are absolutely right. Obama has to call their bluff on this horsesh-- right now. I am sooo tired of it already, and what has it been, 2 months?


: gosh, i hope so! (none / 0) (#21)
by cpinva on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 04:13:37 PM EST

Will McConnell also hold his breath
until his face turns blue?
that would be the single most constructive thing he's done in years. i do insist that pictures be taken.

Ugh (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by lilburro on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 08:44:34 AM EST

Let the Republicans stand up and embrace torture. Nothing on those memos is new. Although if Obama really DID care about torture he would notice the Republicans willingness to accept it and think, "hmm, maybe I should do more to make sure we never torture again...because these folks sure don't have a problem with it."

But unfortunately Obama left a lot of the Bush school CIA friends in power. Brennan is the homeland security adviser. Former Operations no.2 Stephen Kappes has remained as Deputy Director of the entire organization. And Senator Feinstein loves Kappes - she wanted him instead of Panetta. So what kind of CIA, and what kind of oversight, are we going to get? Hmm, let me guess:

The inquiry, to begin "soon," will be conducted in secret, a congressional aide said, and it is unclear whether findings will be made public. The committee will have the power to subpoena witnesses but "this is not a witch hunt," the aide said.

So there's your marvelous Senate investigating the CIA for you.

The memos probably make it all too clear that whoever looked at them and thought in good faith that what they called for was NOT abusive was a sociopath. And if you thought what they called for was abusive, and still did it, well, you were clearly cowardly.

The CIA apparently has a total unwillingness to face that.

Releasing these memos and standing (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by ruffian on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 09:19:19 AM EST

against torture (and all its euphemisms) should be as close to a no-brainer decision as Obama has to make. He better not even be thinking about backing down on this one. If that one goes, there are no principles left.

: Well, if he doesn't, that brilliant and gifted (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Inspector Gadget on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 09:27:47 AM EST

answer he gave to the American Exceptionalism question goes out the window.

Translation: (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 09:22:10 AM EST

Obama caves to the GOP. We all know by now that Obama's promises are mostly worthless.

Yeah (none / 0) (#23)
by jondee on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 04:50:59 PM EST

we knew that the second he started handing jobs to war pigs and neocon enablers.


I think (none / 0) (#29)
by Socraticsilence on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 05:34:06 PM EST

GA 6th would disagree with you pretty strongly on that one.


No doubt (none / 0) (#30)
by jondee on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 05:37:01 PM EST

Wheres Zell when we need 'im?


Whats really laughable (none / 0) (#31)
by jondee on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 05:43:54 PM EST

is all the posters who believe (like neverland children), that the Clintons wouldnt have been anything like this.


: Now Now Jondee (none / 0) (#32)
by squeaky on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 06:02:36 PM EST

Your CDS is slipping out here. I agree that Hillary would be nearly identical to Obama, in substance, not style. But I do not believe that Bill would have been part of it.
A bit sexist of you to suggest that Hillary couldn't be the same as Obama all on her own.

: Who knows? (none / 0) (#33)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 06:57:04 PM EST

It's kind of a moot point. You got what you wanted didn't you?

Hm (none / 0) (#34)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 06:58:37 PM EST

well considering the fact that he kept a lot of the Bush apologists you might be onto something.


maybe the Spanish (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 09:22:57 AM EST

will get to the bottom of it.

Spain indicted Rios-Montt (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by MKS on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 11:02:47 AM EST

of Guatemala....

The Mayan Indians poignantly looked to Mother
Spain for help. One of the key incidents leading the widening of the civil war in Guatemala was the fire bombing of the Spanish Embassy in Guatemala City, where Mayan Quiche protestors had barricaded themselves....

And Spain has accepted jurisdiction over such cases....


It was a while (5.00 / 0) (#17)
by Jen M on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 02:28:02 PM EST

before Spain re-established diplomatic ties with Guatemala after that bit of horror.

Didn't Spain also go after Pinochet of Chile?


: Sounds right (none / 0) (#22)
by MKS on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 04:39:50 PM EST

Very interesting role that Spain has taken.....

: yes (none / 0) (#24)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 05:10:30 PM EST

it was, in fact, the very same judge that went after Pinochet. very interesting indeed.

Spain says (none / 0) (#25)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 05:11:52 PM EST

they have jurisdiction in this case because 5 (I think) Spanish citizens were detained and tortured in GitMo.


with an inquisition, perhaps? (none / 0) (#7)
by ruffian on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 09:26:21 AM EST

whatever it takes (5.00 / 0) (#11)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 10:09:11 AM EST

I do think it would be hysterical if we found ourselves in the position, with Bybee I think it is who is a sitting federal judge, where we have a guy who is deciding federal cases who cant leave the country or he will be arrested for war crimes.


: well (none / 0) (#12)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 10:09:27 AM EST

maybe hysterical is the wrong word

Based On (none / 0) (#27)
by squeaky on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 05:17:40 PM EST

A book by Philippe Sands; "Torture Team"

About a year ago, a British barrister and writer, Philippe Sands, published a book titled "Torture Team" in England. The book predicted that six top officials in the Bush Administration would be arrested

via war and piece


Calling Daniel Ellsberg. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by oculus on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 03:11:00 PM EST

need a voice vote (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by jsj20002 on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 03:51:00 PM EST

I would appreciate having a roll call vote in the Senate on Dawn Johnsen's confirmation. The legal opinions will come out eventually, but it would be nice to know which Senators were in favor of covering up the crimes of the Bush Administration.

What's horrible (2.00 / 1) (#19)
by Socraticsilence on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 03:25:35 PM EST

is that this makes plain what has long been suspected- any attempt Obama makes to apply even the barest principles of Justice to the Bush admin is going to result in the complete shutdown of the government, since Watergate the GOP has basically refused to play by the rules- they got away with Iran-Contra for much the same reason.

They're also afraid (none / 0) (#26)
by jondee on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 05:13:47 PM EST

of opening a historical can of worms, possibly leading to discussions about how the CIA tortured its way through 'Nam, how we trained groups like Savak and the Latin American death squads.

Best to keep the folks stupid, ahistorical and believing we've always been a massive force for good in the world.


: not much danger of that (none / 0) (#28)
by Jen M on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 05:27:46 PM EST

Those blinders are nearly indestructible

What's in the memos (none / 0) (#9)
by ruffian on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 09:30:04 AM EST

According to Newsweek, quoted by dday over at Digby, what's in the memos is details about which foreign intelligence services were aiding the torture regime. John Brennan does not want them embarrassed. god forbid anyone be embarrassed about their torturing.

: Heh (none / 0) (#10)
by lilburro on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 09:40:49 AM EST

I really don't think Morrocco or Egypt will be embarrassed. It reminds me of Brennan's quote in defense of rendition - it is arrogant for the US to think that Egypt doesn't protect human rights. Uh....yeeeeahh. It's certainly arrogant and hypocritical now.

Obama (none / 0) (#13)
by lentinel on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 10:09:40 AM EST

There are two possible explanations for Obama's reluctance to make these memos public, imo. The first is that he wants to protect Bush. The second is that he wants to protect himself.

its possible (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 10:35:01 AM EST

he only wants to protect executive power and prerogative


: That was then... (none / 0) (#16)
by lentinel on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 01:18:50 PM EST

amounts to protecting himself, imo.