Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman have scooped the press with a Newsweek article claiming to know the verdict of the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility report on the investigations into misconduct and unprofessional behavior by the Bush administration attorneys involved drafting the memos allowing the use of coercive interrogation techniques on prisoners. These techniques were largely derived from reverse-engineering torture inoculation procedures from the military’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape, or SERE programs.
According to Isikoff and Klaidman, the original verdict of the report was changed after the report was reviewed by the attorneys accused, and then reassessed by long-time DoJ honcho, David Margolis. The Newsweek article explains (emphasis added):
Previously, the report concluded that two key authors—Jay Bybee, now a federal appellate court judge, and John Yoo, now a law professor—violated their professional obligations as lawyers when they crafted a crucial 2002 memo approving the use of harsh tactics, say two Justice sources who asked for anonymity discussing an internal matter. But the reviewer, career veteran David Margolis, downgraded that assessment to say they showed “poor judgment,” say the sources….The shift is significant: the original finding would have triggered a referral to state bar associations for potential disciplinary action—which, in Bybee’s case, could have led to an impeachment inquiry.
In an initial assessment by bmaz at Emptywheel, for whom I owe the H/T for the Newsweek article:
Margolis is nearly 70 years old and has a long career at DOJ and is fairly well though of. Margolis was tasked by Jim Comey to shepherd Pat Fitzgerald’s Libby investigation. In short, the man has some bona fides.
But the involvement of Margolis in defanging the OPR report, and thereby assuring that governmental agencies or bar associations will hold John Yoo, Jay Bybee and other Bush-era attorneys accountable for paving the way for legalistic torture, is perhaps not an incidental fact.
Dubious David
The role of Margolis, and the man himself, deserve a closer look. It does not take long to see that 40+ year DoJ veteran David Margolis has some skeletons in his closet, and that his track record is not unblemished.
In a July 2000 letter to the New York Review of Books by by E.L. Doctorow, Peter Matthiessen, William Styron, Rose Styron, Kurt Vonnegut, singled out Margolis as "point man" on a DoJ "vendetta" against Cointelpro victim Leonard Peltier.
Three months ago, in March, I had a phone call from a lawyer who has never been involved in the Peltier case but was aware of my longtime concern. A friend in the Justice Department had just mentioned to him that the FBI was intensifying its anti-Peltier vendetta within the department, with Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis as the point man.
More recently, a 2008 Los Angeles Times story indicated that Margolis had changed DoJ policy and decided to withhold summaries of OPR investigations. The article noted that " the resolution of most matters investigated by the OPR remains closely guarded, even in cases where courts have found evidence of serious prosecutorial misconduct."
The LA Times continued:
Publishing the summaries "reassures the public that [the Department of Justice] takes its self-regulatory responsibilities seriously and puts prosecutors on notice that they face public embarrassment if they are caught engaging in wrongdoing," said Bruce Green, a former federal prosecutor and a professor at Fordham Law School in New York.
Associate Deputy Atty. Gen. David Margolis said it was his decision to excuse the OPR from preparing summaries of cases that might be released to the public. He said the decision reflected a lack of resources, as well as concern about balancing public interests with the privacy rights of individual attorneys facing accusations.
Margolis Covers-up Earlier Interrogation Scandal?
More speculatively, and intriguing, given the claims involved, is Margolis’s involvement in the investigation of a forgotten FBI sting operation against NASA contractors in the early 1990s. Operation Lightning Strike was, according to a Washington Post article at the time, a "20-month Justice Department sting operation focusing on NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston… [resulting] in criminal fraud and bribery charges against nine men and one contractor."
Later, in 1996, a defense committee was formed to support the "NASA-13". The committee, in a petition to the U.S. House of Representatives Government Reform and Oversight Committee claimed that the men caught up in the Operation Lightning Strike, some of whom were victims of "’frame-ups’ and torture, to obtain prosecutions." David Margolis was mentioned as admitting that an OPR investigation into the case was begun in 1994 to look into "investigative and prosecutive misconduct." However, no results from that report were ever made public. The involvement of Margolis in this case deserves further scrutiny, given it involved serious allegations about coercive interrogations and torture.
A defense committee press release was more specific about the abuses conducted by the FBI:
In a report submitted to Congress today, a team of defense attorneys representing the so-called "NASA-13," requested the US. House of Representatives Government Reform and Oversight Committee to hold hearings and appoint a Special Prosecutor, not affiliated with the U.S. government, to investigate the "NASA-13" cases in the light of scientific research competed by a team of NASA industry experts, defense attorneys and behavioral scientists. This report furnishes evidence that at least one of the NASA/IG Federal agents who conducted the NASA sting operation in Houston from 1991 to 1994 was in fact a highly qualified military intelligence interrogator, who with the FBI, employed a highly dangerous form of "psycho-technology" known in the behavioral science community as "Coercive Persuasion" or "CP", a form of mind control.
The phenomenon of "CP" was first observed in the post-traumatic reactions of Korean War military and civilian POWs. Many of these prisoners had confessed to non-existent crimes and cooperated with the enemy after having been subjected to what was then called "brainwashing."
Given that these claims are coming from a pre-9/11 era, they cannot be said to be derivative of recent news reports and scandals. I am not convinced about what actually went on in this case, but it is notable that the defense committee procured a letter from well-known psychologist, and former government Margaret Thaler Singer backing the claims of the defendants:
I have reviewed the Lightning Strike Victims Questionnaires and summary provided by the NASA-13 Defense Committee, and I concur with the committee’s assessment that there is substantial data in these highly consistent statements to confirm that a program of Coercive Influence was employed in the Interrogations of the Lightning Strike Suspects . The questionnaires uniformly reveal a systematic application of psychological techniques, in an organized programmatic way, within a constructed and managed environment, which was aimed at the participants sense of self and sense of reality, producing extreme anxiety and emotional distress….
Such programs can and regularly do produce psychiatric casualties. Practitioners of these programs attempt to hold the subject at the point of maximum stress, without inducing psychosis. My experience over the past four decades and in observing over 3,000 cases since participating in the evaluation of released Korean POW’s, unfortunately reveals that practitioners of these nefarious methods frequently exceed the limits with devastating results.
According to the defense committee, Department of Defense interrogators played key roles in the interrogations of the defendants, as aspect of the case that has also never been explained.
Now this may all be a lot of smoke, but when one adds in the latest role played by Mr. Margolis in spiking the initial results of misconduct on behalf of Yoo, Bybee, Addington, et al. (if we can believe the Newsweek leak), his appearance in this role does not seem so remarkable. Margolis appears to have a long history of involvement in government frame-up and/or obfuscation of internal misconduct by the FBI or Justice Department prosecutors.
Will we see the intrepid U.S. press look more deeply into this? One could wish this were true. Every once in a while the mainstream press shows what it’s capable of, as with the exposure of torture at Bagram under Obama’s administration, or with Scott Horton’s Harper’s revelations on the 2003 killings of three Guantanamo prisoners, covered-up as supposed "suicides".
But the OPR report is shaping up to be one gigantic cover-up, assuming we ever get to see much of it, after the government censors get done with it.
The country is thick with torture and crime, and unable to free itself from thralldom to its governmental enablers. Let’s see how easily Holder, Obama, and Margolis get away with their cover-up of Yoo, Bybee, Gonzales, and Addington’s lies and alibis. Meanwhile, torture continues as official policy of the Obama administration in the guise of an appendix to the Army Field Manual. But outside of Emptywheel, some former interrogators, and a few others, no one seems to care.
And so it goes.



45 Comments




Thanks, Jeff. Your research makes the case that Margolis was very carefully chosen for this role and has produced precisely the result that Holder and Obama wanted.
And no, I don’t expect the M$M to ever mention again what Isikoff and Klaidman have reported. When the exoneration report is released, we will have wall to wall coverage of Cheney crowing about how wonderful and legal his torture program was and absolutely nothing on the cover-up of crimes.
Yes, this was foreordained by the no-accountability president. But note the charges made by the NASA defendants. People like astronauts don’t make charges like this lightly.
Dang! Leonard cannot catch a break. Ongoing vendettas in the FBI — our tax dollars at work!
Thanks for digging this up, depressing as it is.
Margolis has been around long enough, going back to the Cointelpro years, it is worth asking how dirty he is.
I believe Congress should demand hearings, if things turn out as the Newsweek article predicts. The executive branch is out of control, and Congress if failing — under the Democrats — in its watchdog role.
Jason Leopold now has an excellent article up on this at Truthout: http://www.truthout.org/obamas-doj-clears-torture-memo-authors-john-yoo-jay-bybee-professional-misconduct56531
Perhaps they selectd him for his “propreitary” modeling.
You knew the fix was in when Dubya did not have to pardon anyone on the way out.
I came across this post on Margolis.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/5/62425/22619
It praises him. Both Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling went to him about their exposure in the US Attorneys scandal. Now as I said, the post praises Margolis as a standup guy. But as far as I know neither Sampson nor Goodling ever paid any real price (from the Justice Department) for their actions in that affair.
What this all sounds like is Margolis is a man with an impeccable reputation that insiders can go to and have their professional problems smoothed out. There really can’t be any other explanation for why both Sampson and Goodling sought him out on their own before accessing the regular chain of command within the DOJ. This also speaks to Margolis’ own comfort level within the Bush DOJ, and I would add what was going on over at the OLC. He might not have contemporaneous knowledge of the opinions but he could well have had familiarity with, or sympathy for, Yoo and Bybee.
You know there is the old legal saw that says a lawyer never asks a witness a question he/she doesn’t already know the answer to. Holder is a lawyer and I think he was asking Margolis a question, precisely because he knew what Margolis’ answer would be.
What I am trying to get at here is that there are many reasons why Margolis might have been a good choice for this job from an Establishment point of view and all of them demonstrate why he would be a poor choice to objectively weigh and analyze the OPR report.
Very good points. It would appear that we need Diogenes to find the honest, independent person to review the situation.
Big question. Exactly what was Margolis’s job during the Bush administration?
“Let’s see how easily Holder, Obama, and Margolis get away with their cover-up of Yoo, Bybee, Gonzales, and Addington’s lies and alibis. Meanwhile, torture continues as official policy of the Obama administration in the guise of an appendix to the Army Field Manual. But outside of Emptywheel, some former interrogators, and a few others, no one seems to care.”
I so wanted to believe Holder when I sat in on his nomination hearings in D.C. I lost count of how many times he said “no one is above the law” Obama, Holder, Leahy, Whitehouse, etc etc…they all say it “no one is above the law” Complete bullshit.
Do they want the peasants to believe in this “no one is above the law” hogwash or not? Looks like not.
“Torture” = poor judgement
Lies under oath about blowjobs = impeachment
God all mighty it’s blowjobs that gets their justice juices going. Blowjobs. What a pathetic justice system
John Dean was pushing for impeachment of lower level officials in the Bush administration some years back instead of going for the big murdering thugs Bush/Cheney etc.
Can Yoo, Addington, Bybee still be “impeached” for “poor judgment” (torture) so that they can never roll back into a future administration?
I’ve been advocating that for years. Impeach up the chain of command. Each defense provides new information for the next impeachment and conviction. But most of all it prevents service in the future in a position of public trust.
I believe that the only reason that this is not being pursued is that it would require at least 7 Republicans to vote for conviction. And they are still into closing ranks and covering up.
It seems the original purpose of impeachment in the Constitution has been betrayed by just the politics of it.
Why 7 Republicans? Why not the majority? Did it take 7 Dems for Clinton’s impeachment decision but not implemented.
Sure would feel better knowing that Feith, Addington, etc could not roll back into future administrations? A tiny bit of accountability
This Margolis guy is a “Fixer” for DOJ. I smell a stinking Republican Rat in this story.
There is absolutley no phuquing way that anybody from the Bush era will be tried like the nazi’s they are for their massive war crimes. NONE! Everything that the Germans did up until 1945 was completly within their laws remember? That was until they lost a war and were defeated militarily and then dragged to real criminal trials. We have lost 2 more wars but we have not been occupied by a foriegn military that would maybe [Edited by Mod. We do not go down that path, even as a fantasy]. Not in murica and certainly not at this time. glory!
Puts a slightly different interpretation to evaluating the model using black box testing.
The problem I find with this analysis is that it takes as read that a government agency serves some positive purpose, when, in fact, the role of each and every government agency is to make sure nothing they’re tasked to do ever gets done. If an agency were ever to accomplish its mission, it would become obsolete. Career civil servants do everything they possibly can to prevent this eventuality, regardless of what political appointees to agencies might want to get done, vide, Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister.
That sure seems to be a broad brush you’re using to paint the civil service with. Are you saying it is possible for all the things the Labor Dept does to be completed? EPA? No more criminals so no need for Justice? Peace breaks out all over the world so there goes the need for the State Dept.?
I think if I were still a federal employee, I might almost take offense at this blanket statement. Sounds rather like a right wing framing and insult that would come from Rush Limbaugh or those who worship St Ronnie of Ray-gunz.
Book Salon up at the Mothership with Sean Carroll’s From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time hosted by Chad Orzel
I posted this over at bmaz thread, but will repost here,if its ok.
NOTE: Jack Goldsmith was an assisstannt Attorney General in the OLC who resigned after nine months over what he considered overbroad interpretation of the law regarding Geneva Conventions.———–
“Jack Goldsmith himself claims that he largely succeeded in correcting what he saw as overbroad legal opinions issued by his predecessors at OLC. In his book, The Terror Presidency, he claims he resigned partly in an attempt to ensure those corrections stuck and partly because he felt he had lost the confidence of administration leaders. He does not specify who those leaders were, but notes that White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales several times asked him to remain while David Addington, then the legal counsel to the Vice-President and an influential White House figure, was concerned with how often he had overturned previous OLC opinions.[6]The Terror Presidency
Goldsmith is the author of The Terror Presidency, a book that details the legal issues the Bush administration faced in the war on terror, including the definition of torture, the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to the war on terror and the Iraq War, the detention and trial of suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, and wiretapping laws. Though he is largely sympathetic with the concerns of the Bush administration’s terrorism policies, his primary claim is that the administration’s focus on the hard power of prerogative rather than the soft power of persuasion had been counterproductive, both in the war on terror and in the extension of effective executive authority. Some of the assertions made in the book include that the Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, David Addington, at one point said that “we’re one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious court,” referring to the secret FISA court that rules on warrants for secret wiretapping by the United States government.”[2]
Wiki
Office of Legal Counsel
The office provides legal opinions and advice to the president and the executive branch on legal issues of special importance or complexity, including the limits of executive power.
According to Jack Goldsmith, one consequence of OLC’s “power to interpret the law is the power to bestow on government officials what is effectively an advance pardon for actions taken at the edges of vague criminal statutes.”[5]
Goldsmith resigned after 9 months. Some claimed that he resigned after a failed attempt to moderate what he considered the constitutional excesses of the legal policies embraced by his White House superiors in the war on terror.[2] Wiki
at least 7
59 + 7 = 66, which is 2/3 of Senate’s 100 members, the Constitutional requirement for a conviction.
It will take a conviction after impeachment to deny them positions of public trust.
Torture / MURDER / Treason is being ingrained into the system. The torturers are still pulling a paycheck ,I bet. The action needed to rip the creeps out of the system would make the health debate seem like a lunchtime conversation. We have let those who carried out murder, intended or unintended, walk.
Margolis is “clean” only if you wish to ignore, for instance, his actions in certain areas, as in the DoJ persecution of Peltier.
Another instance I did not discuss in the article involves Holder and Margolis acting together to spike a serious investigation into the Waco disaster, and in particular after it was discovered the FBI and DoJ had lied for years about using military incendiary devices at the Branch Davidian siege.
This from a 9/15/99 Washington Post story:
I’d say that Margolis’s “clean” reputation has been meticulously assembled, and I’m sorry if there are progressives who fell for it. Until I investigated further, I had no reason to question it myself. It goes to show that received wisdom if often not wisdom at all, and that we need to have a curious mind when it comes to acceptance of good intentions by this particular government (or maybe any government).
I totally agree. My bullshit radar went off the tracks when I read bmaz’s account of the Newsweek article. Of course the BS radar was not aimed at bmaz, or Isikoff or Klaidman, but at Holder and Obama. I decided then I would not let their messenger get off “clean” this time.
Jeff, thank you for digging deep and turning around this report. This is fantastic research and reporting. Well done. The Waco story is fascinating. Assuming Holder chose him for the job to review the final version of the OPR report. Well that was nice of Holder. I’m sure he knew what to expect.
I really wonder whether we will get to hear the reasons from Margolis as to why he changed it in terms of punishment and from Holder as to why he accepted it.
I left this comment over at Emptywheel’s:
I can’t help but go back to this speech Holder gave in June 2008 during a speech at the American Constitution Society on the rule of law.
Holder said “we owe the American people a reckoning” as a result of Bush administration lawlessness with regard to torture and warantless wiretapping. “We have, quite frankly, lost our way with regard to this commitment to the Constitution and to the rule of law,” Holder added.
Here’s the video http://wm.nmmstream.net/genasx/acs/receptionwmv55514.asx. He obviously was speaking rhetorically when he made those remarks.
for some reason when I went to edit my comment the formatting disappeared and I couldn’t retrieve. Sorry it’s a giant lump
Re formatting: I do it all the time. I certainly got the point that Holder is adept at speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
Thanks for the kudos. That was one hell of an article you wrote, by the way, which I linked upthread. You reminded us of the importance of the CIA intervention into this OPR report process, which may turn out to be the most important aspect of this scandal.
Hey Jeff,
You’re barking up the wrong tree with Margolis. He had nothing to do with the Peltier case nor was Peltier a victim of COINTELPRO. Peltier’s problems began at his imperfect trial. I have read every word of his legal case (very thick binder) and there’s no doubt, however, that Peltier is guilty as hell. If there is a vendetta against Peltier, it is because DOJ wants to keep an unrepentant double murderer behind bars. That’s the only reason Margolis and others at DOJ made sure Reno and Clinton were briefed when Clinton was considering clemency. Holder is also aware of the facts and of Peltier’s phony alibis. From the Kos on Margolis:
Yesterday we learned from an astonishing Bloomberg article that David Margolis, a career DOJ employee testified to the HJC about the existence of secret Kyle Sampson emails that reveal the central role of the White House in organizing and directing the Prosecutor Purge.
Although Margolis, age 67, is outranked by Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling (36, and 33, respectively), Margolis was the man in whom they confided on March 8, 2007 about the incredible mess they were in as a result of White House manipulation.
So who is Margolis? See below the fold for why he is one of the most likely reasons that the truth will be told in this scandal.
Margolis is a 1964 graduate of Harvard Law, and has been a career attorney with the DOJ since 1976. He is also, according to an excellent biographical piece in Legal Times, a powerful force for truth within the DOJ, of unquestionably sound character:
From the Legal Times article:
In theory the prosecutors could have appealed Margolis’ decision to then-Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson. But that would have meant taking on Margolis, one of the Justice Department’s most respected officials, a lawyer with a sterling reputation earned over 42 years of service at the department. “Taking him on is a losing battle,” says the source. “The guy is Yoda. Nobody fucks with the guy.”
In many ways, comparing the 66-year-old Margolis to the quirky and ancient Jedi Master is apt. Margolis is widely described as the “institutional knowledge” of the Justice Department. A notorious straight shooter known more for his love of country music and outlaw garb than his politics, he’s managed to navigate the shifting sands of Washington to retain a powerful voice under Attorney Generals Janet Reno, John Ashcroft, and now Alberto Gonzales. Though Margolis is technically outranked by more than a dozen political appointees at DOJ headquarters and all 94 U.S. attorneys scattered throughout the country, his influence on the department extends far beyond his title, say both current and former Justice officials.
Margolis’ bulletproof reputation and lack of partisan stripes also mean that the presidentially appointed attorneys general and deputy attorneys general at the top often turn to Margolis when Justice Department investigations venture into the swirl of national politics. From the investigation after former White House lawyer Vincent Foster’s suicide to the ethics of Kenneth Starr’s Lewinsky probe to the leak of Valerie Plame’s identity, Margolis has played a major role in the DOJ’s attempts to show that its law enforcement actions aren’t motivated by political concerns.
Margolis was a lone voice in the DOJ calling for openness in the investigation of the Vince Foster Suicide, and had his advice been heeded, wingnuts would have to figure out what they would do with 20% of their time. He also played a role in supervising the Valerie Plame case, so he is especially sensitive to politically charged prosecutorial issues.
So Margolis is clearly a “Clean” player, and this fact is critical in examining the timeline of Sampson’s revelation…
I’ve never heard anything bad about Margolis specifically but in cases like this, I think any agency or White House lawyer has a difficult time sorting out who/what is their client, that is who they owe their main allegiance to as a government attorney. For instance, the attorney-client relationship is usually simple for a defense attorney (except with corporate attorneys) and fairly simple for a prosecutor who represents the government against a wrongdoer. But a government attorney who is a career official inside an agency comes to see the agency as his/her client, comprised of the people (colleagues) who work in that agency. When the agency itself stands to be embarrassed or hurt, maybe because a number of high officials or the official’s colleagues have done something wrong, the agency attorney naturally goes into defense attorney mode. And remember that the adversary system means that defense attorneys’ duties run only to their private clients, not directly to truth or justice.
Remember how Monica Goodling let slip some comment that she thought her client was the President? And she was only 33 and there a short time. I think it would be next to impossible for a 42 year-long DOJ attorney to remember his oath to the Constitution and that his main allegiance is supposed to be to the Government as a whole.
The duty to the law is complicated even further with the denigrating of international law during times of war, especially Bush’s “war on terror”. Remember John Yoo and Robert Delahunty wrote in 2005 (in an op-ed advocating for confirmation of Mukasey as AG) that the “Geneva Convention will become increasingly obsolete”.
Especially given that these last several years have empowered the force of politics (with almost no accountability unless you count the few days before Scooter Libby was pardoned), I think nearly everyone in government has, by now, succumbed to the corrupting influence of their environment and has been tainted and desensitized to any semblance of putting ethics and law first, the way it used to be. So even an otherwise good career DOJ attorney like Margolis was not able to rise above it.
Margolis is not that “clean” he, along with other leaders in the Bush DOJ concealed a litany of misconduct and lack of candor to numerous courts. Secondly, Margolis, the guy tasked with doing the “final review”, after the thing had been reviewed and commented on to death internally for years, was a guy who was one of the highest leaders and supervisors in the DOJ in which the targets served and worked in. One of the guys (Margolis) responsible for Yoo, Bybee and the OLC’s work was the one given the opportunity to whitewash it and sweep it under the rug. Very convenient eh? What a shock that he strained to not find misconduct by his own troops.
Right, very well said, and couple that with the fact that that the review was of direct colleagues working with Margolis at DOJ Main, and from what I can discern directly under him at pertinent times they were being investigated for, and you have a recipe for exoneration, not impartial review. It was a conflicted and skewed step that leaves a very sour and sad taste upon consumption.
Jeff,
Thanks for this diary. I spotlighted it to
John Wilke : Justice Pod Leader : Wall Street Journal
Dan Eggen : National Staff Writer – Justice Department : Washington Post
Eric Lichtblau : Justice Department Correspondent : New York Times
Dennis Akizuki : Law and Justice Editor : San Jose Mercury News
Toni Locy : Justice Reporter : USA Today
Henry Weinstein : Legal Affairs Writer : Los Angeles Times
Maura Dolan : Legal Affairs Writer : Los Angeles Times
Mike Kirkland : Supreme Court, Justice Correspondent : United Press International
Curt Anderson : Justice Correspondent : Associated Press
Jim Rubin : Legal Editor : Bloomberg News
I recommend others to spotlight it to your choice of reporters, too.
Bob in AZ
Thanks both Jason and Jeff. We can only hope that both Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman are wrong. But I fear they’re not.
Sara Taylor took an “oath to the president”.
TPM has a really good timeline on the whole scandal.
I like your analysis of what Margolis’ conflicts may be.
Who is holding up Dawn Johnsen’s appointment to oversee OLC?
I’ve mentioned this a few times in comments to articles here. In November, when the Supreme Court declined to accept the appeal in Rasul v. Myers, they effectively sanctioned the DC Circuit Court’s verdict vindicating the logic of Messrs. John Yoo, William S. Bybee, and Stephen Bradbury. That court had ruled that U.S. personnel operating prisons outside the sovereign territory of the United States are not bound by any restrictions on CIDT. That is, like it or not, the gist of John Yoo’s and Stephen Bradbury’s arguments in their memoes. So you can criticize the distinctions they draw between torture methods and where they draw the line between CIDT and torture, and you should, but their legal arguments now carry the stamp of approval of the U.S. Supreme Court. So impeachments and disbarrments probably should begin there.
I don’t like that situation, don’t like it at all. It makes the U.S. a rogue nation in the world of torture and inhumane treatment, a committed practicer of crimes against humanity. But the judiciary itself, from the Supreme Court on down, is to blame for this one, not some lifer in the DoJ.
Coleen, let me take this opportunity to say how much I admire your courage in the actions you have taken lo these many years now.
As to your thoughtful comment, I isolated the portions above I thought notable. It is a very sad, but even more, dire situation that no government bureaucrat is anymore to be trusted. As a psychologist, I’m very aware of “the corrupting influence of… environment.”
The only way to change that environment is going to be, under these circumstances, through a radical reorganization or purge of the government. I can’t say what form that would take. If the government wants to persist in its existing form, then it has to begin making itself accountable, and as I see it, only prosecutions of criminal elements can do that trick. Investigations, which are needed, will not be enough.
Otherwise, the government will finish its descent to outright tyranny, and the overturn of bankrupt institutions will be messy and a world-historical crisis, with no guarantee the outcome will be better than what preceded it. I do not advocate such a solution. I only point out that it is inevitable if fundamental change within the constraints of this governmental system is made impossible, and government agents (the bureaucracy) are totally transformed into agents of the existing power. Furthermore, I am only drawing the conclusions that those who lived through similar times made to the governments of eighteenth century England and France, two countries that also exhausted themselves through extended foreign wars and imperial conquest.
As for Margolis, and the time it has taken to get to this point, I think that one can look back more than the past several years of the Bush Jr regime. The rot began in earnest during the early years of the Cold War, building upon exigent measures taken to fight a “total war” with the totalitarian states of Germany, Italy, and Japan. In the end, the U.S. took on certain qualities of those selfsame states. In Projects Paperclip and National Interest, fascist war criminals were literally brought to this country and placed in government and corporate positions. (see, if you haven’t read it, Linda Hunt’s classic account, Secret Agenda).
My examples of Margolis’s activities, in the accounts above, are examples of the rot in early evidence. Margolis wasn’t suborned in a day, a week, a month, or a decade.
All good points, though I might wonder whether the SC’s decision not to review Rasul v Myers was dispositive in a final sense on the claimants right not to be tortured while in U.S. custody. The whole thing feels darkly criminal. After all, this was the ruling where the District Court said ““torture is a foreseeable consequence of the military’s detention of suspected enemy combatants,” and where the D.C Circuit amplified, ““it was foreseeable that conduct that would ordinarily be indisputably ‘seriously criminal’ would be implemented by military officials responsible for detaining and interrogating suspected enemy combatants.”
That courts even exist at a high level where such statements can be made, and that those seeking their basic human rights against such barbarism can have their appeal thrown out of the highest court on a technicality or legal maneuver is beyond words infuriating. Let us remember, too, that the Obama DoJ asked the Supreme Court to deny this review. And yet, all the media can focus on is whether Alito shook his head and mouthed two words, or whether Obama was uncouth for even bringing up criticism of the court in that setting. What’s shameless is that the media cannot find the cover for encroaching torture even equally as reportable.
You are totally incorrect, and reprinting the text of drational’s Daily Kos diary will not make your case.
There is plenty of documentary evidence of the Cointelpro/FBI interest in L. Peltier, and one of the reasons you hate Ward Churchill so much is because he published some of it in his book The Cointelpro Papers. For instance on one reproduced FBI teletype from July 1975, we have evidence that the FBI wished to “develop information to lock Peltier and Black Horse into this case.” (p. 272) A large group of documents on the case can be accessed at http://www.freepeltiernow.org/LEGAL/COINTELPRO.htm.
But who are you really, jamessimon500. You appear to be a screen name for Joe and John Trimbach at AIM Myth Busters. This site is edited by James Simon (and no other info in his bio), and states:
There is a site for the book “American Indian Mafia”. I hesitate to give the link, but will for the purposes of documentation — not to promote this book. Trimbach was one of the Special Agents in Charge at Wounded Knee. He claims “Leonard Peltier and his lawyers have bilked millions of people out of their money and time in support of his manufactured persona as an innocent man ‘railroaded’ into prison.” He cites favorably reviews by William Webster and Oliver North.
I have not seen the book, but it appears from all accounts to be quite biased. No doubt that will be the same charge jamessimon500 would level against me. I suggest the reader decide for themselves. They may also wish to check out an article with plenty of links by Native American writer Winter Rabbit at ProgressiveHistorians.com; or check out Amnesty International’s latest coverage.
For my readers interest, I should note that in turning down the 2009 parole request for Peltier, Holder’s DoJ noted new evidence in the case. From the DoJ statement:
Holder and his buddies must think us all stupid — though they know that through the silence of the press and the obfuscations of people like jamessimon500, few actually know — because we this statement is meaningless since we already have in our hands a document that shows that the FBI knew within a few days of the shootings that they had inconsistencies in their own stories regarding the shooting of agent Williams. Agents onsite were instructed to “get together and resolve any inconsistencies” prior to the briefing with the Director. The stories did not match the autopsy report. Evidently, they are still playing around with that issue. (Nor does the DoJ press release mention that Nicols was married to the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Office of Law Enforcement Services, or that she had received $25,000 from the FBI in connection with her cooperation on the case.
The Peltier/AIM case has the fingerprints of government abuses all over it, including the kidnapping and tortured false confession of the main witness in the initial Peltier trial.
From a Vancouver Sun story by Pulitzer Prize nominee Rex Weyland:
I hope I have presented enough here to rebut the scurrilous comment by jamessimon500.
Who did Monica Goodling take an oath to? :>) Sorry for the mix-up of my political animals.
Jeff, you’ve probably seen it, but just in case: nice mention of your piece today by Scott Horton.
belated thanks for the kind words, Jeff. Appreciate that very much
Well done, Jeff shooting down disinformation like this and doing so with amazing speed.