Holder's statement...ver batim

[Mira]

I lifted it out of a Politico Report that was sent to me:

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."

[Solly Mack]

1. and here it is on the DOJ site

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2009/ag-testimony-090824.html

[grantcart]

2. examine the fact and follow the law is all that is needed

Start at the bottom and work your way up.

[Parker CA]

3. Up to the very last straggling hair on Cheenee's dome!! ;) nt.

[niyad]

4. that statement is so carefully parsed, it would almost be laughable, it if weren't so sad.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. Not at all. It merely says that those who got the orders, and who turned

to the DOJ to find out if the orders were legal, and were told by the DOJ that the orders were legal, will not be held accountable for following those orders. That in no way precludes a further finding that the orders were NOT legal, and the DOJ's justification of the orders was also NOT legal, making those who issued the orders, and those who defended the orders, themselves legally liable.

This is what could go right up to Rummy and Cheney and Gonzales.

[Mira]

6. I'm on my knees again - praying you are right.

It is one of the two issues where I am withholding judgment of the administration until I know their bottom line.
Investigation and prosecution of the guilty. All of them. I can handle it if it is slow and methodical and like the domino fall in the movie V.
But fall they must.

The other is Health Care and Public Option, which hopefully by default will lead to Single Payer down the road.

[HamdenRice]

11. It's a narrow point a lot of people have trouble understanding. Just one detail...

because people confuse with the the failed "just following orders" Nuremberg defense.

It's not that the torturers were protected by following orders. It's that they are protected from prosecution by the Justice Department for relying on legal opinions from that same Justice Department.

[Individualist]

10. +1

[walldude]

7. That report the CIA released today must have had

some serious shit in it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090823/pl_nm/us_usa_abuse_cia

[ThomWV]

8. So the same fellow is investigating this who has prosecuted no one for the destruction of tapes?

I haven't kept up with what happened with the CIA tapes that were destroyed but if this is the fellow who was in charge if that investigation then it is not a hopeful sign for the future. I mean, there may be some giant master plan and it will all come together in the end, but in the meantime you'd think they'd find something illegal was done somewhere.

[katandmoon]

9. Total weasel statement. Holder =FAIL. Obama=FAIL. I'd actually have more

respect for Holder if he just outright refused to appoint a special prosecutor. But he doesn't have the balls to do that because there would obviously be more political fallout from doing nothing than doing something. So he is going to do the absolutely barest minimum he can get away with doing.

He is a weasel.

[HamdenRice]

12. ROFL! More proof that the doomers, day 1 impeachers, Obama-haters, PUMAs and Trotskyite mob ...

simply don't know what they are talking about.

[katandmoon]

13. Your blinders are on as tight as ever.