Blog on the Run: Reloaded

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 8:53 pm

Investigating torture

Filed under: I want my country back. — Lex @ 8:53 pm
Tags: , , , ,

At long last, Attorney General Eric Holder has decided to appoint a prosecutor to determine whether roughly a dozen previously closed cases in which CIA employees or contractors may have broken the law should be reopened.

That’s the good news. But the Washington Post also says:

[Career Justice Department prosecutor John] Durham’s mandate, the sources added, will be relatively narrow: to look at whether there is enough evidence to launch a full-scale criminal investigation of current and former CIA personnel who may have broken the law in their dealings with detainees.

And that’s the bad news. Because we didn’t abuse and torture prisoners, threaten to kill their children and carry out mock executions, in a vacuum. The individuals responsible did what they did because they received direction from the highest levels of government and fraudulent assurances from John Yoo and Henry Bybee that what they were doing didn’t somehow violate U.S. law, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other laws.

(Durham, by the way, is the same guy who’s investigating the disappearance of CIA videotapes of interrogation sessions.)

There was, in other words, a conspiracy that, according to a boatload of information already in the public record, extended all the way up to the President of the United States. And conspiracy to torture is punishable by the same sentence (except for the death penalty in cases in which the victim died) as the crime of torture itself.

Mr. Durham needs to conduct a fair and full investigation, following the evidence where it might lead (including, if need be, the administrations preceding and following George W. Bush’s), letting himself be guided by the fact that no one can be above the law if our country is to survive.

* * *

Relatedly, censored versions have been released of the CIA reports that former Vice President Dick Cheney claimed would prove that torture had been justified because it prevented terrorism. (Those documents are here.) I’ve scanned them, and my immediate reaction is that despite what Cheney claims, they don’t prove anything either way. Oh, they say that the fruits of interrogation in general were certainly helpful, but not all the helpful interrogation involved torture or was in any other way illegal. Perhaps the uncensored versions would shed more light one way or the other. I don’t know.

UPDATE: Although Cheney’s defenders insist the documents imply that torture worked, former Homeland Security adviser Frances Frago Townsend concedes that though that might indeed be the case, the documents — which, remember, Cheney said would prove torture worked — don’t actually say that.


  1. The Real CIA News

    “The outrage here isn’t that government officials used sometimes rough interrogation methods to break our enemies. The outrage is that, years later, when the political winds have shifted and there hasn’t been another attack, our politicians would punish the men and women who did their best to protect Americans in a time of peril.”

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Thursday, August 27, 2009 4:32 pm @ 4:32 pm

  2. Ah, yes, the epitome of reasoned discourse, the WSJ editorial writers.

    They. Broke. The. Law.

    The interrogations went beyond even what Yoo/Bybee claimed was allowed.

    It’s like talking to a brick wall. The WSJ editorial writers, I mean.

    Comment by Lex — Thursday, August 27, 2009 4:58 pm @ 4:58 pm

  3. WAPO Vindicates Cheney

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Sunday, August 30, 2009 2:17 am @ 2:17 am

  4. Misplaced Outrage over ‘Torture’

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Sunday, August 30, 2009 2:14 pm @ 2:14 pm

  5. Torture and Corporate Social Responsibility

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Sunday, August 30, 2009 10:50 pm @ 10:50 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: