« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
CIA Counsel Dodges on Definition of Torture
CIA general counsel designate John A Rizzo wasn't willing to say much during an open session before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence today, but he did make one major admission: he had not objected to the Department of Justice’s controversial August 1, 2002 memorandum defining torture as equivalent to “organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death”... except when he did, albeit two years later.
Not that he thought his 2002 decision was wrong: “I did not, certainly, object,” Rizzo told Senator J. Rockefeller. “My reaction was it was an aggressively expansive reading but I cannot say I had any specific objections to any specific parts of it.” However, Rizzo added that he “did agree” with the Justice Department’s 2004 revision of the definition of torture – which overrode the very 2002 memorandum to which Rizzo didn’t “specifically object.”
Several senators were distressed and confused by Rizzo’s subsequent embrace of DoJ’s 2004 revision on the definition of torture. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) implied that Rizzo had told Levin in private that he had in fact defended the 2002 memo’s extreme definition of torture. “Did you not tell me that you thought that was a reasonable statement?” Sen. Levin asked. “If I did Senator, I meant to put it in a different context,” Rizzo replied.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) asked Rizzo if he now thought he should have objected in 2002 to what Rizzo himself called the DoJ’s “overbroad” definition of torture. “I honestly can’t say I should have objected at the time,” Rizzo said. Sen. Wyden said he found Rizzo’s statement “unfortunate.”
Comments (15)
Powkat wrote on June 19, 2007 6:13 PM:Ron Wyden drives me crazy sometimes, but he's pretty good when it counts.
Anonymous wrote on June 19, 2007 6:23 PM:the definition of "torture" is irrelevant: Geneva prohibits all _abuse_. Whether something is or is not torture is unrelated to war crimes; Geneva is clear.
As to the issue of the US Code, some illegal abuse -- which is a war crime -- may not be classified as "torture", but it's still a war crime Whether the US chooses to ignore the conduct, not enforce Geneva, or explain away the abuse as "not torture" is the same result: Meaningless leadership to ensure compliance with Geneva, and lawful treatment of prisoners of war.
This is a leadership problem disguised as confusion.
Mary wrote on June 19, 2007 6:39 PM:Levin and a chunk of the Dems who were just as willing as Rizzo to engage in torture and use the DTA to suspend habeas at GITMO and the MCA to immunize torture (although Levin nominally voted against the MCA he and other refused to even attempt a fillibuster or ANY practical and pragmatic maneuvering to keep the bill from vote until Congress reconvened and NONE of them went to bat with stories about any of the many "detainee" war crimes that they had sanctioned - anyway, they can be relied upon to approve Rizzo. He did less to further torture and the degredation of this country than they did, after all.
I'm tired of all the "we weren't the majority, we aren't a big enough majority now" crap.
Mitch McConnell calls more of the shots in the Senate now than Harry Reid and there's no way he lets legislation that his party is dead set against through.
But Levin and the rest refused to rock the boat on anything. Now they think a few tsk tsks are like a sprinkle of holy water on what they've done. God forbid holy water gets anywhere near them - it will be fire hazard.
They've folded so often they probably all have honorary degrees in origami.
al_bigg wrote on June 19, 2007 7:02 PM:I was shocked when, at the end of the hearing, Levin told Rizzo that he was looking forward to his successful confirmation!
JohnJ wrote on June 19, 2007 8:03 PM:Totally amazing....it's the Democratic parties fault????
As long as we have people that reason that way, we will remain the 3rd world dictatorship this group of crooks is turning us into.
Saddam used torture regularly, these crooks are better than him because....what, they have bigger guns and more money??? Or because they are Republicans?
thedeanpeople wrote on June 19, 2007 10:34 PM:Yes, sadly it is the Democratic Party's fault. At least those in the "leadership" who refuse to ACT to stop the ongoing war crimes.
With the majority came the responsibility. The are now the "US Gov't" and have a duty to discharge our treaty obligations -- without regard to their own personal or political costs.
They have the power to impeach the war criminals in the White House. Instead they choose to remain complicit -- provide tacit approval -- in fact, to exonerate the regime by their inaction.
This is not opinion. We don't get to "make the rules" on war crimes. Too many of our brave ancestors fought and died to forge them. There's no fence to sit upon.
This is simply where we are as a nation. Sliding fast from "Once-Great" to "War Criminal" status.
Only Impeachment can even begin to Redeem Our National Soul.
==
Progressive Patriots wrote on June 20, 2007 9:43 AM:SC: jewel (We've been left as stewards of a beautiful one. We are currently smashing it and selling off the pieces.)
To those who say that it's the Dems fault, you're dumber than a bag of rocks. If the Dems had been in power when Gore actually won the election none of this, including 9/11, would have ever happened. I will agree that some of the Dems were certainly enablers but standing by while it happens is quite different than intentionally committing the crime.
With the Republicans you will get Evil, incompetence and a ton of corruption, with the dems it's incompetence and a little corruption.
wingnutjeff wrote on June 20, 2007 10:05 AM:"They have the power to impeach the war criminals in the White House. Instead they choose to remain complicit -- provide tacit approval -- in fact, to exonerate the regime by their inaction."
Posted by: thedeanpeople
Date: June 19, 2007 10:34 PM
No they do not have the power. Having the power means having the votes and the Fourth Reich republican party led by Joe LIEberman are marching in lockstep. If they would not even let a vote of no confidence on Gonzo come to the floor what makes you think that they would allow a vote on impeachment.
That being said they do have the power to do some things that they are not doing. CondoLIEza Rice has refused to testify even though she has been issued a subpoena, lock her up, she's in contempt.
thedeanpeople wrote on June 20, 2007 12:08 PM:"No they do not have the power. Having the power means having the votes..." [in the Senate.]
Posted by: wingnutjeff
Date: June 20, 2007 10:05 AM
They do have the power -- and the duty -- to impeach in the House. Senate conviction is a different, and virtually irrelevant, matter. (This is the same "results fetish" that enables stolen elections -- 2 so far.)
When it comes to war crimes, each gov't official has a duty to acquit themselves honorably/lawfully as an individual -- and many Dems have done so when in the minority by speaking out (the limit of their power at that time).
That changed materially in January, when the power of Congress changed hands. At that point the Democratic Party and its members accepted the burden of leadership (or rather, had it thrust upon them by the electorate).
With the bang of the gavel they became treaty-bound to report on -- and take all necessary steps to stop -- the torture/war crimes, and prosecute any and all perpetrators. Failure to do so is a war crime in itself.
The first step in doing so is to impeach (accuse). Then make the case for replacement with untainted officials who must then prosecute under US Code Title 18:2441.
It really is that tragically simple. And nobody has to ask what Hillary, Rudi, or Obama thinks about it.
--
SC: jewel (I'm building a crown.)
JohnJoeBil wrote on June 20, 2007 2:45 PM:I think that everyone everywhere needs their own personal signing statements so that the plausible deniability will cover everything. Fire the b*st*rds and charge them with intent to defraud Congress or something pithy. THe Dems need to use their power with the country in mind. Work for the people and uncharter the bad guys.
JohnJoeBil wrote on June 20, 2007 2:46 PM:I think that everyone everywhere needs their own personal signing statements so that the plausible deniability will cover everything. Fire the b*st*rds and charge them with intent to defraud Congress or something pithy. THe Dems need to use their power with the country in mind. Work for the people and uncharter the bad guys.
JohnJoeBil wrote on June 20, 2007 2:46 PM:I think that everyone everywhere needs their own personal signing statements so that the plausible deniability will cover everything. Fire the b*st*rds and charge them with intent to defraud Congress or something pithy. THe Dems need to use their power with the country in mind. Work for the people and uncharter the bad guys.
CharlieL wrote on June 20, 2007 3:28 PM:The Democrats are cutting their own throats. They need to STAND for something, and letting this immoral and unethical lawyer be confirmed is NOT what they should stand for.
"I am very sorry, sir, that you did not object when this country destroyed its reputation and moral standing in the world by deciding to engage in actions that go counter to intenational treaties we are signatory to. You are not qualified to advise the CIA on their actions if that is the point-of-view that you take. You're fired. Goodbye."
Ennealogic wrote on June 20, 2007 4:03 PM:Dems, Repubs, it doesn't matter any more. So few who represent us in Congress are honest people who do not owe their position to some interest or other, some interest not in OUR interest. And I don't mean financial interest. I mean upholding the freaking Constitution as they are sworn to do... preserving our lives, our liberties, the rule of law...
I'm so thoroughly disgusted with the government at so many levels that I would like to see the whole thing dissolved so we can start over.
It's simply corrupt, through and through.
Melissa wrote on June 21, 2007 2:21 AM:I am thoroughly disgusted with the Democrats, they might as well be Republicans. Folks , we are going to have to vote for someome else. Not be scared into thinking we can't win unless we vote for war monger or war monger lite. We still have the power.