Naomi Wolf: Don't Prosecute -- and Scapegoat -- Torture Operatives; Go for the Top

[babylonsister]

Naomi Wolf
Posted April 22, 2009 | 06:26 PM (EST)
Don't Prosecute -- and Scapegoat -- Torture Operatives; Go for the Top


As citizens' outrage over the torture memos heats up, and Congress is barraged with calls to appoint a special prosecutor, we may be about to commit an egregious error.

Today Republicans accused Democrats in Congress of having "blood on your hands too" in relation to the escalating calls to investigate. I would like to say that this is exactly right.

I will go further: not only do Congressional Democrats have "blood on their hands" -- but so do we, the American people. And CIA agents may be about to be sacrificed to assuage their, and our, guilt.

Today's suddenly urgent calls by our Congressional Democratic leaders, and even by many of the American people, to prosecute CIA operatives, military men and women and contractors who were certainly involved with, colluded in or turned a blind eye to torture are not only the height of hypocrisy, they are a form of unconscionable scapegoating. The scapegoating is political on the part of Congressional leaders, and psychological on the part of many Americans who are now "shocked, shocked" at what was done in their name.

Hello, America? Hello? Were you asleep for the past seven years? The fact that the Bush administration used torture for the past seven years has been the furthest thing from a secret. When the political winds were with the last administration, which framed qualms about torture as being soft on "the war on terror," just about every Congressional Democrat fell right into line to accept it, if not cheer it on. Even Hillary Clinton supported torture, right up through her Presidential run. Nancy Pelosi was briefed on the torture in closed-door meetings. When activist groups and citizens called for a special prosecutor, all we heard from Congressional Democrats was that they did not wish to spend the political capital.

President Bush championed torture. Vice President Cheney gave such explicit interviews about his role in directing the policy of torture that in legal terms, were there a prosecution, they amount to a confession. Did the Congress that is now so piously calling for the investigation of rank-and-file agents and military express their horror and outrage then? With a very few exceptions, they did not. These leaders "had no idea"? Please.

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/dont-prosecute----and-sca_b_190177.html

[HamdenRice]

1. Well reasoned. Although I would only not prosecute those who relied on OLC opinions

She seems to be making a broader argument about collective complicity.

But she comes to similar conclusions as many here on DU.

Does that mean Naomi is now an Obamabot stooge like the rest of us? Or has this patriotic, analytic, public intellectual reasoned through the issue to the same logical conclusion that many of us came to?

[personman]

2. Plenty of blame to go around, but it's an interesting point

I'm frankly not eager to give ANYONE immunity, but it would be unfortunate to have ONLY the interrogators held accountable. Anyway it's thought provoking so I've mentioned it in a short article I posted:

http://anarchismtoday.org/News/article/sid=146.html">No One to be Held Accountable for Torture

Along with this from Amy Goodman:

After President Barack Obama said there should be no prosecutions, he was received with great fanfare at the CIA this week. Mark Benjamin, the reporter who originally broke the Mitchell and Jessen story, said when I questioned him about Obama’s position: “If you look at the president’s statements and you combine them with the statements of Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff, and Eric Holder, the attorney general ... you will see that over the last couple of days the Obama administration has announced that no one, not the people who carried out the torture program or the people who designed the program or the people that authorized the program or the people who said that it was legal—even though they knew that it frankly wasn’t—none of those people will ever face charges. The attorney general has announced that ... the government will pay the legal fees for anybody who is brought up on any charges anywhere in the world or has to go before Congress. They will be provided attorneys ... they have been given this blanket immunity ... in return for nothing.”

[brindis_desala]

3. This is spot on. Unless I am sitting in a jail for an

act of civil disobedience I have no moral authority to judge the men and women who were carrying out what they believed to be legal if unethical orders. I did not risk my job or my liberty to protest what was clearly immoral but I do retain the right to insist that those who conspired to circumvent the law be held accountable.

[SlingBlade]

4. Agree 100 % Go for the top dogs

[Martin Eden]

5. I agree. We need to go after those who decided on the policy

I've been debating a wingnut in another forum over the torture issue, and his position is that the "libs" want our "brave men and women faithfully serving their country" to go to prison.

The ironic thing is that if prosecutions are inevitable (which they should be) the wingnuts will do everything in their power to shield CheneyBush and it will be the low-level operatives who take the hit -- just like the "few bad apples" at Abu Ghraib.

[bobthedrummer]

6. K&R

[flyarm]

7. The CIA tortured before there were memo's!!!!!!!!!

The memo's were written to cover up the torture that had already taken place.

Many in the CIA quit rather than break the law.THEY FOLLOWED THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS OF OUR LAND.

REMEMBER WE ALL SCREAMED HERE THEY WOULD BE REPLACED BY PEOPLE WHO WOULD BREAK THE LAW..DOESN'T ANYONE REMEMBER THE ANGER HERE ABOUT THAT??????

I sure as hell do!

Many were called disgruntled CIA agents..many quit and gave up their benefits and took early retirement..because they refused to break the law.

So what does it mean for the future to others that refuse to break the law of our land..fuck you..you break the law or else????/ Is that what it means to law abiders in the CIA???????

There is a thing called 'THE RULE OF LAW"..AND ACCOUNTABILITY...IT APPLIES TO ALL..not selected PEOPLE..

Remember we called some CIA agents hero's because they refused to go along, to get along..

wow what happened to our real principles????? I don't see much of it here any longer.

I DON'T NEED A MEMO TO TELL ME THAT IF I BREAK THE LAW IT IS OK.,.IT IS NEVER OK FOR ANYONE!

IF IT IS OK FOR CIA AGENTS TO TORTURE AND MURDER IN OUR NAME..THEN IT IS OK FOR THOSE GERMAN OFFICERS WHO TORTURED AND MURDERED ..including one Nazi Guard who we just deported on a stretcher ...

It is official..we are now a rogue nation if we allow anyone who broke our laws to walk free..we have become what we have always despised.

There should be no excuses for anyone ..not from the top down or the bottom to the top..period.
Our prisons are full of people with low level drug use or possession..they broke our laws..if the CIA guys walk then everyone in our prisons for minor crimes should be let go immediately! Because by letting the CIA guys off the hook for our laws..our laws become meaningless!

We have been living with the consequences of rogue CIA agents..and they have for well over 30 years been re-cycled on us ..and we have been living with the consequences of a shadow government ..

Do yourselves a favor ..Read "Barry and the Boys" and see what some want to excuse and what the ramifications of doing so are.

[flyarm]

8. Go after them all!!

read the whole story.......
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/23/and-did-james-mitchell-also-write-the-psychological-profile-of-abu-zubaydah-bybee-used/#more-4008

And Did James Mitchell Also Write the Psychological Profile of Abu Zubaydah Bybee Used?
By: emptywheel Thursday April 23, 2009 10:17 am

snip:
But is it too cynical to suggest that Mitchell also had an interest in saying that Soufan and the FBI's (and apparently, in part, CIA's) non-brutal techniques failed? From page 24 of the Senate Armed Services Committee report:

Subsequent from his retirement from DoD , Dr. Jessen joined Dr. Mitchell and other former JPRA officials to form a company called Mitchell Jessen & Associates. Mitchell Jessen & Associates is co-owned by seven individuals, six of whom either worked for JPRA or one of the service SERE schools as employees and/or contractors. As of July 2007, the company had between 55 and 60 employees, several of whom were former JPRA employees.


snips;
But Mitchell may have done more than certify that the only way to get Abu Zubaydah to speak was to waterboard him. He may have been the guy who did the psychological profile that found him fit to be waterboarded.

The May 30, 2005 memo attributes an incredibly chilling comment, acknowledging that waterboarding exceeded the guidelines laid out in the 2002 OLC memo, to a "psychologist/interrogator."

The IG Report noted that in some cases the waterboard was used with far greater frequency than initially indicated, see IG Report at 5, 44, 46, 103-04, and also that it was used in a different manner. See id. at 37 ("he waterboard technique ... was different from the technique described in the DoJ opinion and used in the SERE training. The difference was the manner in which the detainee's breathing was obstructed. At the SERE school and in the DoJ opinion, the subject's airflow is disrupted by the firm application of a damp cloth over the air passages; the interrogator applies a small amount of water to the cloth in a controlled manner. By contrast, the Agency Interrogator ... applied large volumes of water to a cloth that covered the detainee's mouth and nose. One of the psychologists/interrogators acknowledged that the Agency's use of the technique is different from that used in SERE training because it is "for real--and is more poignant and convincing.")

Is this "psychologist/interrogator" the person who supplied the dubious profile (the one disputed by FBI people) that Bybee used to determine that Abu Zubaydah was fit to be waterboarded?

According to your reports, Zubaydah does not have any pre-existing mental conditions or problems that would make him likely to suffer prolonged mental harm from your proposed interrogation methods. Through reading his diaries and interviewing him, you have found no history of "mood disturbance or other psychiatric pathology<,>" "thought disorder<,> ... enduring mood or mental health problems." He is in fact "remarkably resilient and confident that he can overcome adversity." When he encounters stress or low mood, this appears to last only for a short time. He deals with stress by assessing its source, evaluating the coping resources available to him, and then taking action. Your assessment notes that he is "generally self-sufficient and relies on his understanding and application of religious and psychological principles, intelligence and discipline to avoid and overcome problems." Moreover, you have found that he has a "reliable and durable support system" in his faith, "the blessings of religious leaders, and camaraderie of like-minded mujahedin brothers." During detention, Zubaydah has managed his mood, remaining at most points "circumspect, calm, controlled., and deliberate." He has maintained this demeanor during aggressive interrogations and reductions in sleep. You describe that in an initial confrontational incident, Zubaydah showed signs of sympathetic nervous system arousal, which you think was possibly fear. Although this incident led him to disclose intelligence information, he was able to quickly regain his composure, his air of confidence, and his "strong resolve" not to reveal any information.



snip:
So it seems that in the early days of the torture program, the "psychologist/interrogators" were the ones making these medical and psychological judgments. Precisely the kind of people contracted to the CIA from Mitchell's consulting firm.

[Raksha]

9. NO, dammit!!! We the people DO NOT have blood on our hands!

At least not those of us in the lefty blogosphere, or anyone who kept some residual degree of sanity during the run-up to the Iraq War and later.

I am a huge fan of Naomi Wolf and never thought I'd disagree with her on anything substantial, but I am just not buying into the collective guilt trip. Remember that WE KNEW thread in General Discussion? That was just LAST NIGHT, fer crying out loud, and it's still an active thread, still on the front page.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5514979&mesg_id=5514979

We're all talking about how WE KNEW from the beginning what was going on but couldn't get anyone to listen, because everyone around us was stopping their ears. About how we felt like we were in one of those nightmares where we opened our mouths to scream but no sound would come out.

WE KNEW, all right, but we were fucking powerless to stop it!!! Because we had lost control of our own government...and we knew THAT too!

Being powerless to stop it is NOT the same as passive complicity. I was never in denial at any time and I do NOT have blood on my hands!

[flyarm]

11. I could not agree with you more Raksha!!!

and my values and principles are not for sale..and i will not allow anyone to think i have blood on my hands..i fucking do not..i have been fighting this since the get go..and i will not sit back quietly while others want to exonerate any of the bastards that broke our laws and our treaties ..no siree..not on my hands and I want each and every individual that committed these war crimes and crimes against humanity held accountable to the full extent of our law!

No exceptions!

[flyarm]

10. British court is demanding that the UK government obtain US torture docs within a week or the court

cross posted ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5519712&mesg_id=5519712

British court is demanding that the UK government obtain US torture docs within a week or the court will issue its own order to get them:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090422/wl_mcclatchy/3218126

By Julie Sell, McClatchy Newspapers Julie Sell, Mcclatchy Newspapers – Wed Apr 22, 7:54 pm ET
LONDON — The chief justice of the British High Court on Wednesday gave the British government one week to obtain the U.S. release of classified information about the alleged torture of a British resident who'd been detained at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba .

The court indicated that it would issue its own order if the government doesn't respond or justify why continued secrecy is warranted.

Noting that President Barack Obama had released highly sensitive documents tracing the decisions on torture during the Bush administration's war on terror, the high court judges voiced exasperation that the British government hasn't acted in what they said was the British public interest in being similarly open.

The hearing illustrated how Obama's decision to be more transparent about his predecessor's detainee policies is having ripple effects abroad, but it also threw the ball back to the Obama administration to approve release of the contested information.

The White House said it had no comment yesterday.

[alarimer]

12. The CIA has always tortured.

Now, maybe in the past there weren't any memos okaying it but it still went on. Presidents just looked the other way or maybe preferred not to get too specific.

So any prosecution of anyone won't actually do any good without disbanding the rotten behemoth that is the CIA and all the other alphabet soup spy agencies.

For a democratic country we sure have a lot of undemocratic institutions.

[rpannier]

13. Do you advoacte abolishing all these intitutions

Because the Army is one of the least Democratic institutions we have

I would also point out that every Democratic country has a lot of undemocratic institutions