White House Counsel Gonzalez Signed Off On Torture?

Tail wags dog; Gonzales approved torture before OLC memos

The timelines have never matched up; the OLC memos were written subsequent to the onset of the reported harsh interrogations of Abu Zubaydah. The obvious question then is with what "legal" (using the term for the sake of argument) justification was waterboarding used on Abu Zubaydah?

New evidence suggests then counsel to the president, Alberto Gonzales, allegedly approved the use of torture well before any hack OLC opinions that justified its use.

An anonymous source told NPR that in April and May of 2002 CIA contractor James Mitchell sought approval on a daily basis for so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” via top-secret cables to the CIA’s counterterrorism center. The CIA forwarded those cables to the White House, according to National Public Radio, and Gonzales would approve the technique, thus granting a legal basis for Mitchell’s actions – in theory at least.

“I can’t believe the CIA would have settled for a piece of paper from the counsel to the president,” (a) former government official told NPR. “If that were true,” says the former official, “then the whole legal and policy review process from April through August would have been a complete charade.” (Link)

This is what will continue to happen in the absence of any investigation of the Bush Administration interrogation policies. The slow drip of damning evidence that the program was, indeed, a lawless sham.

h/t Jay McDonough

Note To Obama: Don't Let Them Slide!

The Rule Of Law

by hilzoy

From the AP:

"Barack Obama's incoming administration is unlikely to bring criminal charges against government officials who authorized or engaged in harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists during the George W. Bush presidency. Obama, who has criticized the use of torture, is being urged by some constitutional scholars and human rights groups to investigate possible war crimes by the Bush administration.

Two Obama advisers said there's little — if any — chance that the incoming president's Justice Department will go after anyone involved in authorizing or carrying out interrogations that provoked worldwide outrage.

The advisers spoke on condition of anonymity because the plans are still tentative. A spokesman for Obama's transition team did not respond to requests for comment Monday.

Additionally, the question of whether to prosecute may never become an issue if Bush issues pre-emptive pardons to protect those involved."

This is a big mistake. It is enormously important that we establish the principle that members of the government cannot break the law with impunity, and we cannot do that without being willing to prosecute them when, as in this case, there is overwhelming evidence that they violated the law. This is especially true of the most senior members of government, like the Vice President.

That said, I can easily see why Obama might not want to do this. The problem isn't just that it would be bad for him to be seen as carrying out a partisan witch hunt; it would also be bad for the law, and for these prosecutions, if they were seen as a partisan witch hunt.

Luckily, there's a fairly obvious solution to this problem. Obama should appoint a special prosecutor. (If current laws do not allow for this, they should be changed.) This prosecutor should be someone with an unimpeachable reputation for wisdom, rectitude, and non-partisanship. (Think Archibald Cox.) He or she should be given complete independence, and should decide, without any interference from anyone in government, whether or not to bring charges. That would allow charges to be brought if they are merited, while minimizing the chances that they would be seen as partisan.

Altogether too many people believe that the laws do not apply to people in power. This is always a dangerous thing for people to think in a democracy; it is especially dangerous since some of the people who believe this are in power now, and others might attain power in the future. It is very, very important that this belief be wrong. And whether or not it is wrong depends on President-elect Obama. I hope he chooses wisely.

Yes, yes, and yes. As a teacher I think consequences are necessary to learning. This administration has violated many laws, yet nothing has happened to them. Obama needs to think about the world he is leading, and who lives in it--like his daughters and my son. To do nothing would be silly season!

Bush: War Criminal

Alberto Gonzales is opening up. Here is the latest:

In March 2004, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales made a now-famous late-night visit to the hospital room of Attorney General John Ashcroft, seeking to get Ashcroft to sign a certification stating that the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program was legal. According to people familiar with statements recently made by Gonzales to federal investigators, Gonzales is now saying that George Bush personally directed him to make that hospital visit.

The Truth Is Slowly Emerging II

Bush is a war criminal, and now Alberto Gonzales is willing to say so....

Report: Bush Directed Gonzo To Ashcroft's Hospital Bed

By Zachary Roth - September 26, 2008, 2:00PM

Murray Waas reports on the website of the Atlantic that Alberto Gonzales is now telling investigators that he was being personally directed by President Bush when, as White House counsel, Gonzales made a much-discussed late-night visit in 2004 to the hospital room of then Attorney General John Ashcroft, in order to get Ashcroft to certify that the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program was legal.

During Congressional testimony last year, Gonzales repeatedly refused to answer persistent questioning from Sen. Chuck Schumer as to whether the president, or Vice President Cheney, had directed him to seek out Ashcroft in the hospital.

Cheney himself told CNN's Larry King shortly afterward: "I don't recall that I gave instructions to that effect."

It's an important question, because its answer would shed light on the extraordinary lengths to which the president was willing to go to see the wiretap program reauthorized. At the time of the hospital-room meeting, Ashcroft, in Waas's words, "had been in intensive care for six days, was heavily medicated, and was recovering from emergency surgery to remove his gall bladder."

Waas adds:

Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey has said that he believes that Gonzales and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, who accompanied Gonzales to Ashcroft's hospital room, were trying to take advantage of Ashcroft's grievously ill state--pressing him to sign the certification possibly without even comprehending what he was doing--and in the process authorize a government surveillance program which both Ashcroft and the Justice Department had concluded was of questionable legality.

Gonzales' claim has come to light as part of an investigation being conducted by the Inspector General for the Department of Justice into whether Gonzales lied to Congress. In a separate story posted today, Waas reports that DOJ investigators are also looking into whether Gonzales created a set of fictitious notes to provide a rationale for the president's reauthorization of the program.

Gonzales had claimed during his testimony that at a 2004 meeting just prior to the Ashcroft hospital visit, Congressional leaders had given their support to the program. Four of those leaders have since denied that. President Bush had cited Gonzales' notes of the Congressional meeting as a rationale for reauthorizing the program. But the notes weren't written until days after the meeting, and after Bush and Gonzales had officially reauthorized the program. Gonzales has told the investigators that Bush personally directed him to write the notes, though it is unclear when. Investigators believe that, depending on when they were written, the notes could be evidence of an effort to provide a post-hoc justification for the reauthorization of the program.