Obama Administration, Torture And Incompetence

This just in (emphasis added)

CIA officials who participated in enhanced interrogations during the Bush administration will not face charges, unnamed administration officials told the Associated Press on Thursday.

"Even before President Barack Obama took office in January, aides signaled his administration was not likely to bring criminal charges against CIA employees for their roles in the secret, coercive terrorist interrogation program. It had been deemed legal at the time through opinions issued by the Justice Department under the Bush administration," the wire service reported.

"But the statement being issued Thursday by Attorney General Eric Holder, the nation's chief law enforcement officer, is the first definitive assurance that those CIA officials are in the clear, as long as their actions were in line with the legal advice at the time.

"The officials spoke about the Holder statement ahead of its release on condition of anonymity, so as not to pre-empt the attorney general."

"This is a victory for the CIA, which had been seeking a formal, public statement for its case officers, and which had been worried that the document's disclosures could subject many of them to future prosecution," wrote Marc Ambinder with the Atlantic. " Now, even if Congress launches investigations, the CIA will be, more or less, safe."

I previously lectured (Obama administration) CIA director Leon Panetta on the matter of the law regarding torture.

I could understand (to some extent) that the CIA director would be unaware, or ignorant, of what the law says regarding the promulgation, encouragement, ordering, or even actually making legal, torture.

But an attorney general being likewise so ignorant of the law à la Alberto Gonzales?

I never expected something like this - then again, considering the equal ignorance of the law on matter of torture of Holder's boss, I should not be surprised.

Hence, allow me herein to educate AG Holder in turn thusly:

(...) the Convention Against Torture, which was signed by President Reagan in 1988 and ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1994, explicitly states the following among others (emphasis added):

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

Article 5

1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
   1. When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
   2. When the alleged offender is a national of that State;
   3. When the victim was a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.
2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this article.
3. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.

Article 7

1. The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
2. These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 1.
3. Any person regarding whom proceedings are brought in connection with any of the offences referred to in article 4 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings.

Article 12

Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committee in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Article 15

Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.

Now, Mr. Holder - pay extreme attention to articles 2.1 (No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture), 2.2 (An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture), and 4.1 (Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture).

And let us not forget other articles not mentioned herein, such as 6.2 (Such State shall immediately make a preliminary inquiry into the facts), 10.1 (Each State Party shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment), 10.2 (Each State Party shall include this prohibition in the rules or instructions issued in regard to the duties and functions of any such persons), and 11 (Each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture).

Consequently, AG Holder:

When your colleague CIA director Panetta announces that "agency employees who took part in harsh interrogations of terrorism suspects are not in danger of being punished", then such is in direct contravention of the law of your country.

When your Justice department Justice Department lawyers extend many of the same arguments made by Bush attorneys – that top government officials have qualified immunity from prosecution, then your Department is in direct contravention of the law of your country.

When each day that passes whereby you (and/or your boss) fail/refuse to investigate and/or prosecute officials of the Bush administration for encouraging acts of torture, despite even public confessions to this effect, as well as those who actually committed said acts of torture, then you are in direct contravention of the law of your country.

When your boss intones that "this is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past", despite his earlier lip service exercise to the contrary, then his position is nonetheless in direct contravention of the law of your country.

And when you announce that "It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department", then once again you stand in direct contravention of the law of your country.

Hence, Mr. Holder, I reiterate what I have previously conveyed to Mr. Panetta and to your boss, President Obama:

It should be obvious to you now, sir, that your demonstrated legal strategies so far not only constitute implied condoning of torture, but furthermore constitute a disavowal of the law of your country regarding torture - and consequently A) this makes you directly complicit after the fact of any and all acts of torture performed under the Bush administration; and B) this makes you directly complicit after the fact of the policies of torture sanctioned/approved/encouraged/allowed by the Bush administration.

All of which, under the same laws outlined above, render you and your administration equally guilty of criminal offences as outlined by said laws against torture.

In other words, Mr. Holder: the Obama administration, of which your are an integral part, has consistently revealed itself to be complicit after the fact of such crimes through its systematic and relentless (quiet) defense of these, as well as acquiescence of the wrong-headed, echo chamber, mendacious, yoolegal justifications which created the environment whereby such barbaric atrocities were (could, can still be, are still) committed - and now evidently excused/accepted/embraced, despite whatever occasional lip service and/or showcase gestures to the contrary being served by President Obama and/or members of his administration - such as you.

In conclusion: the whole of the Obama administration is as equally incompetent as the previous Bush administration regarding the willfull ignorance of the law.

As well as equally criminal and barbaric, regarding torture.

Any questions?

... Mr. Holder?

... Mr. Panetta?

... President Obama?

... Bueller? Bueller?

Is it just me, or is there something fundamentally wrong with the world when a Canadian scientist ends up giving a refresher course on American law to American lawyers, attorney generals, law enforcement officers and Presidents?