A Tale of Two Torture Lawyers

Two stories in the American Bar Association Journal today highlight lawyers whose refusal, in the first instance, and participation, in the second, have earned them everlasting infamy (and a demotion in the case of the resistor) in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Daniel Levin once worked for Alberto Gonzales's Department of Justice ~ until he wrote a memo disagreeing with Bushco's torture policies, whereupon he was asked to step down. "Too independent," it was said, after he had himself subjected to waterboarding while researching the Bushco predetermined party line that waterboarding isn't torture.

"[A] former high-level Justice Department lawyer says he was asked to leave after he wrote a memo opposing harsh interrogation techniques he considered torture but was promised a job as a U.S. Attorney by former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

"Daniel Levin confirmed in testimony yesterday that he was asked in 2005 to leave his DOJ job as the acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel after he opposed harsh interrogation techniques in a 2004. Although he didn't draw a direct parallel between the memo and the request to step down, others did, reports ABC News, relying on unnamed sources.

"Meanwhile, sources say Levin was told by Gonzales that he would appoint him to a U.S. Attorney position, once the dust settled, to sweeten the downward departure to a position the ex-AG found for him at the National Security Council. Although Gonzales reportedly made a preliminary move or two to get Levin a job as a U.S. Attorney, that never happened and Levin later left to return to private practice.

"'Levin, a graduate of Harvard University and the University of Chicago Law School, was seen by some in the administration as too independent, sources said. For example, while analyzing specific interrogation techniques, he went to a military base outside Washington and personally underwent waterboarding, which he concluded qualified as torture, unless done in a narrow way with close supervision,' the ABC News article recounts'."

Gonzales Axed Anti-Torture Lawyer: http://www.abajournal.com/news/gonzales_axed_anti_torture_doj_lawyer_but_promised_us_attorney_job

Researching North Korean Torture Methods at the Pentagon

Today, a former lawyer for the Pentagon's testimony is expected to shed more light on when torture was first conducted versus when the Pentagon finds it now convenient to claim that it was authorized.

"The lawyer, Richard Schiffrin, said the information he obtained included studies of North Koreans’ attempted mind-control experiments on American prisoners during the Korean War. 'It was real Manchurian Candidate stuff,' he told the Times.

"The revelation comes amid disclosures that Pentagon lawyers played a more active and earlier role than previously disclosed in developing aggressive interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo, the story says.

"The Washington Post reports that new evidence appears to contradict previous statements by former Defense Department general counsel William Haynes II about the timing of research into enhanced techniques. Haynes previously said research was done at the request of Guantanamo jailers in October 2002. But memos and e-mail show Haynes was soliciting interrogation ideas as early as July that year, the story says.

"Military lawyers raised strong concerns about the legality of enhanced techniques in November 2002, a month before they were approved, according to the Post.

"Then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved enhanced interrogation techniques in December 2002, but he rescinded his order allowing the harshest methods a month later, the Times says. The military never authorized interrogations as harsh as those carried out by the Central Intelligence Agency, which used waterboarding until the end of 2003.
The techniques approved for use at Guantanamo included stress positions and sleep deprivation.

"Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., contends in a statement that research into aggressive techniques by senior officials helped pave the way for Abu Ghraib abuses."

http://www.abajournal.com/news/ex_pentagon_lawyer_acknowledges_research_into_real_manchurian_candidate_stu

America Does Not Torture!!

Unzipped body bag, Abu Grhaib photo: Salon

Bushco sez: "And we'll destroy evidence to prove it to ya."

Update: Obfuscation & Denial 101: the only things Hayden, Bush are really proficient at:

Hayden testified before Congress today in the matter of the destruction of CIA tapes showing "robust interrogation" methods. Hayden professes not to know a thing about it, as it occurred when Tenet was head of the CIA & tapes were destroyed under Goss. And despite reports by a CIA agent that the interrogation techniques had been approved at the "highest levels" of Bushco, Preznit Bush sez he didn't know nothing, neither.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071212/ap_on_go_co/cia_videotapes

~ Highly credible & honest in matters regarding torture as they've so far proved themselves, the CIA and the DOJ announce that they're investigating themselves ~ We can't wait for the results ~

The New York Times reports today that only after a Congressional investigation of the destruction of CIA tapes was announced, the CIA & the DOJ decide to get on board with conducting their own investigations of themselves. And conflicting stories already abound.

"The announcement comes amid new questions about which officials inside the C.I.A. were involved in the decision to destroy the videotapes, which showed severe interrogation methods used on two Qaeda suspects, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.

"The agency operative who ordered the destruction of the tapes in November 2005 was Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., then the chief of the C.I.A.’s national clandestine service, known as the Directorate of Operations until 2005. On Saturday, a government official who had spoken recently with Mr. Rodriguez on the matter said that Mr. Rodriguez told him that he had received approval from lawyers inside the clandestine service to destroy the tapes.

"This disclosure could broaden the scope of the inquiry into the tapes’ destruction. Several officials said that top lawyers at the White House and the Justice Department advised the C.I.A. in 2003 not to destroy the videos.

"Current and former intelligence officials said that the agency’s senior lawyer, John A. Rizzo, had not been notified about the decision and was angered to learn about the destruction of the tapes, which could complicate the prosecution of Abu Zubaydah and others.

"Mr. Rizzo’s position, together with the fact that the C.I.A. inspector general, John L. Helgerson, is now examining the matter, indicates a greater level of internal concern at the agency over the destruction than Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director, indicated in his message to agency employees on Thursday. General Hayden’s message said that Mr. Helgerson’s office had reviewed the tapes in 2003, but did not mention whether the inspector general had signed off on their destruction.

"In a statement released on Saturday, General Hayden said he welcomed the inquiry and the 'C.I.A. will cooperate fully.'”

"Investigators will gather facts to determine whether a full inquiry is warranted. If it is determined that any agency employee broke the law, the standard procedure would be for Mr. Helgerson to issue a criminal referral to the Justice Department.

"The investigation comes after both the Senate and House intelligence committees started their own investigations into the destruction of the tapes. In a statement on Saturday, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Silvestre Reyes, Democrat of Texas, said the inquiry would be an 'important first test' for Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey to demonstrate his independence. 'I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer as to why Congress was kept in the dark about this matter,' he said.

[...]

"Officials have acknowledged that the destruction of evidence like videotaped interrogations could raise questions about whether the C.I.A. was seeking to hide evidence of coercion. A review of records from military tribunals indicates that five lower-level detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, were initially charged with offenses based on information provided by or related to Abu Zubaydah.

"Military defense lawyers said the fact that interrogation tapes were destroyed could provide a way to challenge other cases that may be based on information from Abu Zubaydah, though such challenges would face major legal obstacles under the current rules for military prosecutions. They said the defense could argue that the tapes might have raised questions about whether the information was believable or whether Abu Zubaydah had invented it simply to stop aggressive interrogation techniques. Col. Steven David, the chief military defense lawyer for the Guantánamo war crimes cases, said at a trial, 'The inference is they destroyed it because it was bad for them.'

"He said the disclosure of the destroyed tapes 'raises serious concerns' about other potential prosecutions, but it was too early to say how many, or how serious the damage might be. In any case based on information from Abu Zubaydah, defense lawyers could raise the issue of the destroyed tapes as a way to challenge the case. From a defense lawyer’s perspective, Colonel David said, 'the issue becomes what is lost, what is destroyed, what else has been destroyed and what else is out there that we are not aware of.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/washington/09zubaydah.html

Joe Biden, meantime, called for the appointment of a Special Counsel, an idea poo-pooed by other Democrats who apparently think America trusts them to get to the bottom of it (despite the fact that they've so far failed, miserably, in any endeavor we weary American citizens can think of, to successfully even slow ~ never mind stop ~ the Bushco juggernaut of improbable, heretofore unthinkable & truly fantastic War on Terror campaigns).

Biden Wants Special Counsel: (WaPo): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/09/AR2007120900457.html

Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002 (Nancy Pelosi included), No Protest: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html

Democrats have generally failed to heed voters with respect to Bushco arrogance & continued law-breaking: "Democrats' Year of Living Fecklessly": http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/110707.html