Holy shit. From Greenwald:

[cali]

UPDATE: These memos are now becoming available, and do truly appear to be almost entirely unredacted. They are unbelievably ugly and grotesque and conclusively demonstrate the sadistic criminality that consumed our government. Just consider parts of this August 1, 2002 Memo (.pdf) by then OLC official (and now-federal judge) Jay Bybee, authorizing the following techniques for Abu Zubaydah, who was shot three times on his capture and still suffering from those wounds when these techniques were authorized (click on images to enlarge - it's worth it):

"Walling" is slamming an individual into a wall. "Cramped confinement" means "placement of the individual in a confined space" that "is usually dark . . . the dimensions of which restrict the individuals movements" -- in other words, a coffin-like space. The memo specifically states that the purpose of "stress positions" is to cause "muscle fatigue." And here is what "insects placed in a confinement box" means (and here is one unexplained redaction):

Later, the memo notes that Zubaydah was to be told that the insect inserted in his box was a "stinging insect." It then provides detailed instructions on how the insects can be used to torment him:

<snip>

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2009/04/16/aclu/

On a different note, I also want to point out that Greenwald has nothing but praise for Obama- unlike some not terribly well informed DUers.

I will add more detailed commentary, along with an interview with the ACLU's lead counsel, Jameel Jaffer, as soon as the documents themselves are available. If the report about the OLC memos are accurate, Obama will have done exactly the right thing here and will deserve real credit. My analysis earlier today of the issues surrounding disclosure are here. Here is part of what Obama said in his statement:

[wryter2000]

1. Thank you

I think this will be really big. If Obama and Holder have been working on this carefully, I'm glad they took the time to do it right.

My only question will be if the corporate media give this the least bit of attention that it deserves.

[Uzybone]

8. Corporate media continues to call it "harsh methods"

instead of torture. Damn them.

[wryter2000]

24. Turns out

It's "so-called 'torture memos.'" Sigh.

[FedUpWithIt All]

2. Excellent. Very glad to see the quotes at the link.

:bounce: :applause:

[horseshoecrab]

3. Thank you for posting this

This is so incredibly shameful.


horseshoecrab

[liberalmuse]

4. People are going to demand justice.

This is mindboggling. I'm so glad our President released these (but in a way, I'm disgusted at the heinous stuff in these memos and wish this never had to happen).

On edit: After reading more of the article, I was disconcerted at the immunity given the CIA, but then again, they were ordered to do this from the top. That doesn't NOT make them complicit in these crimes, but the ones who really, REALLY need to be punished are in the Bush cabal.

[McCamy Taylor]

5. Prosecute Cheney, Gonzales and the higher ups. That's the only way to keep it from happening again.

I hope this evidence helps the Spanish government in their case against Gonzo and the others.

[walldude]

11. Spain is going to drop the case...

Hartmann was talking about it today. Spanish AG doesn't want to go through with it.



And while I have 90% praise for Obama I must be one of those not very well informed DU'ers because I am pretty upset about the Administrations decision to continue to allow rendition in order to keep "enemy combatants" from having the right to habius corpus.

[LakeSamish706]

6. You can find the documents at this URL...

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/olc_memos.html

[Winterblues]

7. I am only a tax payer and a voter but Obama has lost my vote

I will never vote for a Republican but I will just not vote any more. I can not stress enough how much I disagree with allowing these criminals to escape justice. It is not about laying blame it is about integrity and the fullfillment of the promise that no one is above the law in America. Obama just proved that not true.

[cali]

9. whatever. Greenwald clearly disagrees with you

so do I.

[Hissyspit]

13. You disagree that no one is above the law in the U.S.?

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. No; Greenwald disagrees with you

Finally, given all the talk about how it would be so unfair to prosecute Bush officials given that they believed what they were doing was legal, Bradbury made clear in the last paragraph of the memo just how dubious was his conclusion that all of these techniques were legal:
...
The more one reads of this, the harder it is to credit Obama's statement today that "this is a time for reflection, not retribution." At least when it comes to the orders of our highest government leaders and the DOJ lawyers who authorized them, these are pure war crimes, justified in the most disgustingly clinical language and with clear intent of wrongdoing. FDL has a petition urging Eric Holder to immediately appoint a Special Prosecutor to determine if criminal proceedings should commence.

Obama did the right thing by releasing these memos, providing all the information and impetus the citizenry should need to demand investigations and prosecutions. But it is up to citizens to demand that the rule of law be applied.
...
UPDATE III: My interview with the ACLU's Jameel Jaffer can be heard by clicking PLAY on the recorder below. Jameel (a) calls for a Special Prosecutor on behalf of the ACLU and (b) emphasizes that nothing said by Obama or Holder today should be understood to foreclose criminal prosecutions. For all the reasons Jameel describes, I agree with that assessment, and Marc Ambinder reports that senior Obama officials told him (anonymously, of course) that nothing Obama or Eric Holder said today was intended to foreclose prosecutions. Russ Feingold made a similar point.

Needless to say, I vehemently disagree with anyone -- including Obama -- who believes that prosecutions are unwarranted. These memos describe grotesque war crimes -- legalized by classic banality-of-evil criminals and ordered by pure criminals -- that must be prosecuted if the rule of law is to have any meaning. But the decision of whether to prosecute is not Obama's to make; ultimately, it is Holder's and/or a Special Prosectuor's. More importantly, Obama can only do so much by himself. The Obama administration should, on its own, initiate criminal proceedings, but the citizenry also has responsibilities here. These acts were carried out by our Government, and if we are really as repulsed by them as we claim, then the burden is on us to demand that something be done.

[depakid]

10. The timing couldn't have been better- the day after the tea party deals

Not that the sad sacks who attended are likely to feel any real sense of "what an idiot I am" -but it might tend to drive a further wedge between the Libertarian element and the Republican party.

[wildbilln864]

12. k&r! nt

[democrank]

14. No more excuses. Prosecute!

[DevonRex]

15. Thanks. That's pretty big coming from him.

[Windy]

16. Give him time. I think he will use those who followed the orders to get the ones who gave the order

that is what should have been done with the Abu Gharib mess. The ones in Levenworth aren't the ones who were most at fault. Those that ordered it walked. If you've been in the military... you will understand. (having said that, I would have been dishonorably discharged before I would have tortured anyone...)

[GeorgeGist]

17. I feel strong outrage and faint praise.

Obama is obfuscating justice, while simultaneously exposing evidence of crimes against humanity.

I'm not a fan(atic).

[GeorgeGist]

18. Let us praise the Holy Shit ...

from Brilliant Assholes and ignore the Stupid Shit from Bad Assholes. Amen, asshole.

[cali]

21. take your nonsense

and shove it.

[druidity33]

19. Glenn is great...

but i don't think i'd say that "Greenwald has nothing but praise for Obama". On this issue perhaps, but in the past he has been highly critical of the Obama administration and its legal tactics.

:shrug:

[Junkdrawer]

22. As for "Greenwald has nothing but praise for Obama" - not quite accurate....

I'll have more details as soon as these memos are available. One can certainly criticize Obama for vowing that no CIA officials will be prosecuted if they followed DOJ memos (though that vow, notably, does not extend to Bush officials), but -- assuming the reports about redactions are correct -- there is no grounds for criticizing Obama here and substantial grounds for praising him.


That's pretty much what most of us "not terribly well informed DUers" have been saying.

[Orsino]

23. At first glance, it appears that there is a national-security basis...

...for at least some of the redaction. These documents appear to contain more revelation than cover-up.