Holder: Law Not Always Followed in Terror Fight

[cal04]

Source: Associated Press

Attorney General Eric Holder told a mostly military audience Wednesday that some of those engaged in the battle against terrorism did not always follow the law.

Holder did not mention torture or name the target of his criticism, leveled in a speech for a law conference at the U.S. Military Academy. However, he praised military lawyers in the Judge Advocate General Corps for their work representing terror detainees.

''In our current struggle against international terrorism, when others surrendered faithful obedience to the law to the circumstances of the time, it was the brave men and women of the JAG corps who stood up against the tides, many times risking their careers to do so,'' Holder said.

The speech came a day before a court deadline for the Obama administration to release all or parts of key Bush administration memos detailing which tough interrogation techniques were acceptable against terror suspects. Critics of the Bush administration say those tough techniques amounted to torture.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/04/15/us/AP-Holder-West-Point.html

[OnyxCollie]

1. No shit.

Do something about it.

[ixion]

2. gee, ya think? what was your first clue, Mr. Holder?

was it the warrantless wiretapping? the extraordinary rendition? the torture? the fact the whole freakin' idea of a 'war' on an abstraction is stupid? what was the first clue? :eyes:

[Supersedeas]

22. more obfuscation, vagaries, ambiguities from officials who can't tell it like it is

[rfranklin]

3. There were extenuating circumstances in Nazi Germany...

They were only following orders. Somehow the Nuremburg tribunal didn't see it the same way.

[razors edge]

4. I'm shocked!

Shocked I tell you!

Next time I interrogate an innocent man I will wear my rubber boots, so I don't get shocked after the water boarding.

[peace13]

5. How do we get Obama and his folks to understand...

that until the rule of law is reinstated they too are guilty of war crimes. The people have spoken. We want the Constitution back and we want the Geneva Conventions upheld. If this administration does not want to get to the bottom of this stuff then they too should prepare to answer one day. This country will never have laws if the top of the pyramid is allowed to continually ignore them. The time is now to restore America. We must lift ourselves up off of our knees before we can step forward and be leaders again.

[pat_k]

7. Just keep confronting with reality. Beltway blindness, like. . .

. . .the denial of addiction, is a powerful force.

Challenge those who make excuses for their failure to prosecute to Stop making excuses and start demanding action.

Challenge those in the media to confront the hypocrisy of claiming to "uphold the Constitution" while harboring torturers.

Challenge Members of Congress to stop farting around "investigating" and demand Immediate Prosecution for what WE ALL KNOW. Be on the look out for opportunities to do it face-to-face at public appearances or in town hall meetings.

Basically, just keep doing what you are doing.

It is not about making them "understand" -- it is about forcing them to actually Think. To actually listen to the irrationality of their irreconcilable "positions." The problem with group think is that it is NOT "Thought" at all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5447507#5448828">More . .

[razors edge]

8. Well said.

We have strayed from that rule of law, or social contract, for far too long.

There are those who want to piece meal it back to a respectable point. That could take as long as it took to get to where we are now, if we don't loose track along the way again.

There's a new Sheriff in town, it won't pretty no matter how it plays out, but I hope he gets it right.

[cali]

13. No, they're not guilty of war crimes. such hyperbole doesn't achieve anything.

[atreides1]

15. They could be considered accessories

In some jurisdictions, an accessory is distinguished from an accomplice, who normally is present at the crime and participates in some way. An accessory must generally have knowledge that a crime is being, or will be committed. A person with such knowledge may become an accessory by helping or encouraging the criminal in some way, or simply by failing to report the crime to proper authority. The assistance to the criminal may be of any type, including emotional or financial assistance as well as physical assistance or concealment.


In some jurisdictions, an accessory is distinguished from an accomplice, who normally is present at the crime and participates in some way. An accessory must generally have knowledge that a crime is being, or will be committed. A person with such knowledge may become an accessory by helping or encouraging the criminal in some way, or simply by failing to report the crime to proper authority. The assistance to the criminal may be of any type, including emotional or financial assistance as well as physical assistance or concealment.

What would you suggest be done to achieve justice?

[Winterblues]

18. When you harbor war criminals and cover up the atrocities you are also guilty.

Is Obama not harboring war criminals? Is he not protecting them from prosecution by withholding evidence? e know crimes were committed, so why are there no prosecutions? By stopping prosecutions Obama is breaking the law. The USA is Obligated by Treaty as a signatory to Geneva Accords to investigate war crimes if there is evidence that such crimes were committed. There is one group that has been recognized by each and every signatory as being the deciding voice on whether torture has been committed. That group is the International Red Cross and they have indeed said as much. The USA is Obligated to prosecute. Obligated by LAW. so tell us again how Obama is not as guilty if he refuses to meet those obligations..

[L. Coyote]

20. Accessory after the fact is also a crime. Obstruction of Justice is the usual indictment, like

destroying torture tapes showing techniques that were "thereafter" legitimated by the torture memos, to obfuscate how the memos were written to cover for the crime.

[barbtries]

17. well said.

it's already so late. JUSTICE now. :headbang:

[pat_k]

6. Protecting torturers from prosecution isn't "surrendering faithful obedience to the law"?

"We will not sacrifice our values or trample on our Constitution"

Too late. You've already done that with your refusal to prosecute government officials who proudly ordered Americans to torture.

"If a detainee is too dangerous to release, yet there are insurmountable obstacles to prosecuting him in federal court, what shall we do?" Holder said. "Though we do not know yet the answer, I pledge that the ultimate solution will be one that is grounded in our Constitution."

"What shall we do"?!?

That is an EASY ONE. If the person is not a lawful combatant;* if there is no other country seeking extradition, the minute it is obvious that there are "insurmountable obstacles to prosecuting him" you must STOP holding the person in U.S. Custody. Now. Period.

This is the choice we have made as a nation. We accept the risk of releasing guilty/dangerous persons as a necessary price for protecting the sanctity of the basic right to freedom of movement.

We did not design a system that arrogated unto itself the power to indefinitely hold any person, from any country, if we have no justification that can stand up in U.S. Federal or U.S. Military court, no matter how "dangerous" one may fear they are. If we have no justification for holding as a POW/lawful combatant; if no other nation or international court is asserting jurisdiction, we must set them free. To hold indefinitely without process or cause is tantamount to cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment.

Every day they extend the state of indefinite limbo while they figure out "What to do"; every day they refuse to charge Bush, Cheney, and officials responsible for torturing under color of law, Obama, Holder, Panetta, et al aren't just trampling on the Constitution, they make themselves accessories to War Crimes.


________________________

* A lawful combatant is an individual authorized by governmental authority or the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) to engage in hostilities. A lawful combatant may be a member of a regular armed force or an irregular force. In either case, the lawful combatant must be commanded by a person responsible for subordinates; have fixed distinctive emblems recognizable at a distance, such as uniforms; carry arms openly; and conduct his or her combat operations according to the LOAC. The LOAC applies to lawful combatants who engage in the hostilities of armed conflict and provides combatant immunity for their lawful warlike acts during conflict, except for LOAC violations.

[Iowa]

11. Very well said!

[Wizard777]

9. Wonderful! Holder has the theorem of law and ethics down. Now lets see the practicum.

[winyanstaz]

10. So, this means that if

we think our "cause" is great enough, we don't have to follow the law?
Perhaps he meant that laws only apply to the little guys.
Sorry...I gotta call bullshit.
Heck of a job there Holder.

[Bandit]

12. So what are you going to do about it?

If you do nothing then you are also breaking the law. Are laws and our Constitution now meaningless?

[Solly Mack]

14. "when others surrendered faithful obedience to the law to the circumstances of the time"

"to the circumstances of the time"
Interesting


That said...

Since you acknowledge they broke the law....well???????

[1776Forever]

16. This speaks volumes to the loyalty to the best of what we are in this country & always have been!

When I read this chills went up my spine. I have for years been protesting the privatization - in the way it was tried to overthrow our military - of the PMC's run by those like Rumsfeld and Cheney! The way they turned the insurgency in Iraq into full blown no rules or regulations blood filled coup is going to live in infamy!

They had NO rules of engagement and the terror and treacherous acts they left behind will forever be on the minds of those whose hearts and minds we should have been trying to win over. Our brave men and women in our Armed Forces took the brunt of this behavior! God bless those in JAG who tried to live by the true principles that our country was founded on!

As the mother of 3 who served in the service of our country I salute you!

:patriot:

[No Elephants]

19. What does a law mean, if it is not enforced Or, what does America mean, if it enforces laws only

against low ranking members of the military, not against those who gave them their orders

Anyone? Anyone? Buehler? Anyone? Calley? England? Anyone?

[Amonester]

21. If Holder doesn't Hold ALL the law-breakers accountable for their crimes,

then what are laws good for, and Holder is not better than them