TPM Muckraker

« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

Holder: We're Launching "Preliminary Review" Of Torture

Eric Holder has now officially announced his decision to appoint a prosecutor to investigate torture. Depsite what was reported earlier, his statement doesn't appear to rule out looking at the DOJ lawyers who approved the policy

Here's the statement:

The Office of Professional Responsibility has now submitted to me its report regarding the Office of Legal Counsel memoranda related to so-called enhanced interrogation techniques. I hope to be able to make as much of that report available as possible after it undergoes a declassification review and other steps. Among other findings, the report recommends that the Department reexamine previous decisions to decline prosecution in several cases related to the interrogation of certain detainees.

I have reviewed the OPR report in depth. Moreover, I have closely examined the full, still-classified version of the 2004 CIA Inspector General's report, as well as other relevant information available to the Department. As a result of my analysis of all of this material, I have concluded that the information known to me warrants opening a preliminary review into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations. The Department regularly uses preliminary reviews to gather information to determine whether there is sufficient predication to warrant a full investigation of a matter. I want to emphasize that neither the opening of a preliminary review nor, if evidence warrants it, the commencement of a full investigation, means that charges will necessarily follow.

Assistant United States Attorney John Durham was appointed in 2008 by then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate the destruction of CIA videotapes of detainee interrogations. During the course of that investigation, Mr. Durham has gained great familiarity with much of the information that is relevant to the matter at hand. Accordingly, I have decided to expand his mandate to encompass this related review. Mr. Durham, who is a career prosecutor with the Department of Justice and who has assembled a strong investigative team of experienced professionals, will recommend to me whether there is sufficient predication for a full investigation into whether the law was violated in connection with the interrogation of certain detainees.

There are those who will use my decision to open a preliminary review as a means of broadly criticizing the work of our nation's intelligence community. I could not disagree more with that view. The men and women in our intelligence community perform an incredibly important service to our nation, and they often do so under difficult and dangerous circumstances. They deserve our respect and gratitude for the work they do. Further, they need to be protected from legal jeopardy when they act in good faith and within the scope of legal guidance. That is why I have made it clear in the past that the Department of Justice will not prosecute anyone who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the interrogation of detainees. I want to reiterate that point today, and to underscore the fact that this preliminary review will not focus on those individuals.

I share the President's conviction that as a nation, we must, to the extent possible, look forward and not backward when it comes to issues such as these. While this Department will follow its obligation to take this preliminary step to examine possible violations of law, we will not allow our important work of keeping the American people safe to be sidetracked.

I fully realize that my decision to commence this preliminary review will be controversial. As Attorney General, my duty is to examine the facts and to follow the law. In this case, given all of the information currently available, it is clear to me that this review is the only responsible course of action for me to take.


14 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Without commenting on the broader issues here, does anyone else think Obama/Holder are making a political mistake by announcing the prosecutor at the same time that the report is released?

I would have preferred that they release the report, without any official comment (convenient that the President is on vacation right now), let the gruesome details percolate in the media for a week or so, and then announce the appointment of a special prosecutor. Now, the story will be all about Holder and Obama's response to torture, which will be distorted by FNC/RNC, et al, instead of focusing on the torture itself.

user-pic

We can hope that Holder is making sure that his decisions as AG are not based on political considerations. This will be more and more important as we continue to learn what really went on under Bush/Cheney.

user-pic

This is fantastic.

Yes, yes, yes, yes. Investigate.

The key thing is, look to see if crimes were broken and if they are prosecutable. That's all we ask.

Ignore the politics (easier said than done.) Follow the law.

Let the GOP wail and moan and menace. They doth protest too much.

user-pic

"That is why I have made it clear in the past that the Department of Justice will not prosecute anyone who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the interrogation of detainees. I want to reiterate that point today, and to underscore the fact that this preliminary review will not focus on those individuals.

I share the President's conviction that as a nation, we must, to the extent possible, look forward and not backward when it comes to issues such as these."

Put it in simpler terms:
Only the little fish may be prosecuted if they happened to exceed BY FAR John Yoo's already loose standards regarding torture.
The middle-sized fish are safe unless someone can PROVE BEYOND DOUBT that they did not act "in good faith".
And the big fish have nothing to worry about because "we are looking forward, not backward".
This administration's new motto seems to be:
CHANGE YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE BELIEVED IN

user-pic

I fail to see where Holder is allowing this to go beyond the small fish.

I want to emphasize that neither the opening of a preliminary review nor, if evidence warrants it, the commencement of a full investigation, means that charges will necessarily follow.

Sounds to me like he's leaving himself open to the possibility that whatever we find in this investigation, no one may be held accountable!

user-pic

Following these guidelines after WW2 would have saved many German and Japanese from being hung for "War Crimes".

user-pic

It doesn't take an attorney to understand that Holder is still intentionally holding back.

Quoting from SLATE, 2008, "Mukasey was also widely celebrated as a man more devoted to separating right from wrong than to partisan politics. He, too, was lauded as tough yet fair. But as we soon learned at his confirmation hearings, and again when he told Congress and the federal courts to stay out of the CIA tapes investigation, even the most independent-minded and apolitical souls can somehow morph into David Addington once they've sipped the Bush administration's Kool-Aid...

"Whether Durham will prove more like Mukasey or more like Patrick Fitzgerald—the dogged special prosecutor in the Valerie Plame case—is the question on everyone's mind today."

"To be or not to be...?"

user-pic

The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine. Take heart. It's only the first step of many.

Remember what happened to Robert McNamara over Vietnam, he may never have gone to prison but he was haunted for all of his days over what he had done.

user-pic

"It's only the first step of many."

Agreed. I am heartened by Holder's statement. He makes it clear that he is not after the little fish, and that this may well lead to a full investigation. Since he specifically leaves out of that next step those individuals who acted in good faith, and within the guidelines that they were told were "legal", we can conclude that he has bigger fish to fry.

user-pic

He also makes it clear that he is not after any of the "big" fish.

user-pic

Caveman, no mistake, a great first step, let's hope it's the first of many. Bush-Cheney was a criminal operation, to pretend otherwise is to enable that behavior.

user-pic

Just like a corruption case, start with those perpetrating the torture and find out who ordered it. Then who ordered them to order it and so on and so on. That way crap will be able to run uphill. I can just see Bush and Cheney joking about it during their weekly luncheons.

user-pic

If he were planning on doing everything within his considerable power to make sure only a handful of interrogators who exceeded the criminally excessive leeway granted by Yoo's memos are ever prosecuted, this is the exact statement he'd make. However, if he were anticipating that there's not going to be any way to keep the thing from moving up and up the table of organization until it gets into the Cheney OVP, this is also exactly the statement he'd make.

Damifino which it will turn out to be. Only thing I'm sure of is that the angry people on our side will take it the first way and the loony right will take it the second way and both will have the degree of unshakable certainty in their own conclusions that one usually associates with religious fanatics.

user-pic

Miss Fitzgerald? It's times like these when I really miss Janet Reno.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe
Tip Line

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Zachary
Roth

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address