Holder on release of torture memos

[ProSense]

Torture Memos Released, with only Minor Redactions :

In connection with ongoing litigation, the Department of Justice today released four previously undisclosed Office of Legal Counsel ("OLC") opinions – one that OLC issued to the Central Intelligence Agency in August 2002 and three that OLC issued to the CIA in May 2005.

"The President has halted the use of the interrogation techniques described in these opinions, and this administration has made clear from day one that it will not condone torture," said Attorney General Eric Holder. "We are disclosing these memos consistent with our commitment to the rule of law."

Holder also stressed that intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and relied in good faith on authoritative legal advice from the Justice Department that their conduct was lawful, and conformed their conduct to that advice, would not face federal prosecutions for that conduct.

The Attorney General has informed the Central Intelligence Agency that the government would provide legal representation to any employee, at no cost to the employee, in any state or federal judicial or administrative proceeding brought against the employee based on such conduct and would take measures to respond to any proceeding initiated against the employee in any international or foreign tribunal, including appointing counsel to act on the employee’s behalf and asserting any available immunities and other defenses in the proceeding itself.

To the extent permissible under federal law, the government will also indemnify any employee for any monetary judgment or penalty ultimately imposed against him for such conduct and will provide representation in congressional investigations.

"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," Holder said.

After reviewing these opinions, OLC has decided to withdraw them: They no longer represent the views of the Office of Legal Counsel.

The handwringing will now focus on who will be prosecuted. I hope the officials who wrote the arguments and authorized torture.

[truebrit71]

1. Fine. Then sue the fuck out of those that wrote the goddmaned memos in the first place..

...SOMEONE HAS TO BE HELD TO ACCOUNT FOR THIS!!!! :grr:

(It still doesn't make it right..the ACTUAL torturers KNEW they were torturing....but I'll settle for Gonzales, Addington, Yoo, Cheney, Rumsfeld and bush behind bars...)

[ProSense]

2. I would hope not

No one said anything about giving those who wrote the arguments or authorized torture immunity.

[AtomicKitten]

3. drip, drip, drip

I'm fine with not prosecuting the underlings if it means sunlight on the policy. I want those that rationalized and then ordered torture to be prosecuted. The drip, drip, drip of the sordid details will make that more likely.

K&R

[MannyGoldstein]

4. The Spanish Are Going After The Lawyers That Wrote Them

This might provide good evidence for an international tribunal.

[democrank]

5. Prosecute every last one of them.

[Supersedeas]

6. "Careful records are kept on each interrogation, which ensures accountability..."

[Moosepoop]

7. I'm not clear on this...

From the 3rd paragraph of the OP:

Holder also stressed that intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and relied in good faith on authoritative legal advice from the Justice Department that their conduct was lawful, and conformed their conduct to that advice, would not face federal prosecutions for that conduct.

What is the criteria for distinguishing those that acted "reasonably" under the legal advice of the JD from those that acted in an "unreasonable" fashion under the same advice??

Also, that paragraph states that these employees would not face federal prosecutions for their conduct.

But in the very next paragraph, it says that if there are any federal judicial proceedings (or state proceedings, or administrative proceedings) brought against any of the employees, the government will provide legal representation for them.

He is saying that they won't be prosecuted, but if they're prosecuted, they'll be represented?? This doesn't make sense.