<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Acting Counsels and Torture</title>
	<atom:link href="http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/01/acting-counsels/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/01/acting-counsels/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:02:28 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: wigwam</title>
		<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/01/acting-counsels/comment-page-1/#comment-61665</link>
		<dc:creator>wigwam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:10:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/01/acting-counsels/#comment-61665</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;That was from a debate that took place in Chicago in December 2005 between John Yoo and Doug Cassel of Notre Dame.  See &lt;a href=&quot;http://rwor.org/a/028/john-yoo.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://rwor.org/a/028/john-yoo.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That was from a debate that took place in Chicago in December 2005 between John Yoo and Doug Cassel of Notre Dame.  See <a href="http://rwor.org/a/028/john-yoo.html" rel="nofollow">http://rwor.org/a/028/john-yoo.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: wigwam</title>
		<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/01/acting-counsels/comment-page-1/#comment-61664</link>
		<dc:creator>wigwam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:05:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/01/acting-counsels/#comment-61664</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;In that same article, Marty claims that&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;[T]he March 14th Yoo memorandum, and the April 2, 2003 DOD Working Group Report that incorporated its outrageous arguments about justifications for ignoring statutory limits on interrogation, was secretly briefed to Geoffrey Miller before he was assigned to Iraq, and became the source of all the abuse that occurred there in 2003 and early 2004.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;thereby laying moral (and possible legal) responsibility for the abuses Abu Ghraib at the feet of Yoo and Miller, who could no doubt implicate people yet higher in the chain of command.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A few bad apples, indeed!&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In that same article, Marty claims that</p>
<blockquote><p>[T]he March 14th Yoo memorandum, and the April 2, 2003 DOD Working Group Report that incorporated its outrageous arguments about justifications for ignoring statutory limits on interrogation, was secretly briefed to Geoffrey Miller before he was assigned to Iraq, and became the source of all the abuse that occurred there in 2003 and early 2004.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>thereby laying moral (and possible legal) responsibility for the abuses Abu Ghraib at the feet of Yoo and Miller, who could no doubt implicate people yet higher in the chain of command.</p>
<p>A few bad apples, indeed!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kspena</title>
		<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/01/acting-counsels/comment-page-1/#comment-61662</link>
		<dc:creator>kspena</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 07:20:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/01/acting-counsels/#comment-61662</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;EW, I’m emailing you the 22 page Mora torture memo (pdf). &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also here’s bio of Mary Walker, another blond and devout evangelical…&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mary_Walker&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind.....ary_Walker&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>EW, I’m emailing you the 22 page Mora torture memo (pdf). </p>
<p>Also here’s bio of Mary Walker, another blond and devout evangelical…</p>
<p><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mary_Walker" rel="nofollow">http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind&#8230;..ary_Walker</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: quake</title>
		<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/01/acting-counsels/comment-page-1/#comment-61661</link>
		<dc:creator>quake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 06:41:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/01/acting-counsels/#comment-61661</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;“mark to market” was originally adopted as an alternative to carrying assets on the balance sheet at the original purchase price (i.e., valuing Manhattan Island at $24 if your company bought it in 1626 and still owns it).  This was intended to make the true value of corporate assets more transparent to outsiders.   In general (in the case of traditional corporations that had owned assets for a long time) it usually had the effect of marking things up, not down.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>“mark to market” was originally adopted as an alternative to carrying assets on the balance sheet at the original purchase price (i.e., valuing Manhattan Island at $24 if your company bought it in 1626 and still owns it).  This was intended to make the true value of corporate assets more transparent to outsiders.   In general (in the case of traditional corporations that had owned assets for a long time) it usually had the effect of marking things up, not down.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mary</title>
		<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/01/acting-counsels/comment-page-1/#comment-61660</link>
		<dc:creator>Mary</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 06:20:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/01/acting-counsels/#comment-61660</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;85 - I think that was from a talk with Yoo as opposed to a memo, but the concept that you would torture without the “intent” to torture because you were trying to interrogate is as banal as saying you would murder someone for their money without the “intent” to murder because it was just a step towards getting the money.  By making them dead.   &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As to the kids - who knows what has happened.  If they are alive and are ever going to be produced, they will no longer look like children, that’s for sure.   It’s been years and no one in Congress ever mentions them. Or their mother. But one of the GITMO detainees (I think the only one we haven’t released back to Britain) had DOJ go after his ability to even talk to his lawyer, much less testify, about what happened to him before he made it to GITMO and IIRC he is the detainee who also says he was held for a time at the same facility where the children were being tortured. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But the threats to kill family members as an accepted interrogation technique sure show up in the memos solicited and approved by the Man Who Comey and Goldsmith Wanted To Make Judge.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thank God for Pat Leahy or Haynes would have been snuck in.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>85 &#8211; I think that was from a talk with Yoo as opposed to a memo, but the concept that you would torture without the “intent” to torture because you were trying to interrogate is as banal as saying you would murder someone for their money without the “intent” to murder because it was just a step towards getting the money.  By making them dead.   </p>
<p>As to the kids &#8211; who knows what has happened.  If they are alive and are ever going to be produced, they will no longer look like children, that’s for sure.   It’s been years and no one in Congress ever mentions them. Or their mother. But one of the GITMO detainees (I think the only one we haven’t released back to Britain) had DOJ go after his ability to even talk to his lawyer, much less testify, about what happened to him before he made it to GITMO and IIRC he is the detainee who also says he was held for a time at the same facility where the children were being tortured. </p>
<p>But the threats to kill family members as an accepted interrogation technique sure show up in the memos solicited and approved by the Man Who Comey and Goldsmith Wanted To Make Judge.  </p>
<p>Thank God for Pat Leahy or Haynes would have been snuck in.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: WilliamOckham</title>
		<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/01/acting-counsels/comment-page-1/#comment-61657</link>
		<dc:creator>WilliamOckham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 04:49:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/01/acting-counsels/#comment-61657</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;After slogging through pages and pages of juvenile rationalizations for torture, I came to this head-exploding statement (referring to an &lt;strong&gt;Israeli&lt;/strong&gt; court decision banning a set of interrogation techniques as too hideous even for them):&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Nonetheless, the decision is still best read as indicating that the acts at issue did not constitute torture.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After slogging through pages and pages of juvenile rationalizations for torture, I came to this head-exploding statement (referring to an <strong>Israeli</strong> court decision banning a set of interrogation techniques as too hideous even for them):</p>
<p><em>Nonetheless, the decision is still best read as indicating that the acts at issue did not constitute torture.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hmmm</title>
		<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/01/acting-counsels/comment-page-1/#comment-61656</link>
		<dc:creator>Hmmm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 04:20:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/01/acting-counsels/#comment-61656</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/justice_dept_releases_interrog.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sez Leahy&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;It has been more than four months since I asked the White House – again – to declassify the secret Justice Department opinions on interrogation practices. Today’s declassification of one such memo is a small step forward, but in no way fulfills those requests. The administration continues to shield several memos even from members of Congress.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Points up the Why this one? / Why now? question.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/justice_dept_releases_interrog.html" rel="nofollow">Sez Leahy</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>It has been more than four months since I asked the White House – again – to declassify the secret Justice Department opinions on interrogation practices. Today’s declassification of one such memo is a small step forward, but in no way fulfills those requests. The administration continues to shield several memos even from members of Congress.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Points up the Why this one? / Why now? question.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bmaz</title>
		<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/01/acting-counsels/comment-page-1/#comment-61654</link>
		<dc:creator>bmaz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 03:52:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/01/acting-counsels/#comment-61654</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;No, maybe not necessarily about preventing taking the stand (although that effort will be made), but I can see an argument that anything in the memos is beyond the scope of Davis testimony because he could not be the “best evidence” on any of that (assuming he was not familiar with the memos).  This is a pretty asinine argument, but I can see it working in this setting.  Conversely, it may be to draw the first blood and serve as justification for potential testimony he might give on the quality of evidence from detainees and how it may have been obtained.  This much more likely really than the first thought.  I dunno, I just don’t know or understand the process for these Kanga Kourts well enough.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No, maybe not necessarily about preventing taking the stand (although that effort will be made), but I can see an argument that anything in the memos is beyond the scope of Davis testimony because he could not be the “best evidence” on any of that (assuming he was not familiar with the memos).  This is a pretty asinine argument, but I can see it working in this setting.  Conversely, it may be to draw the first blood and serve as justification for potential testimony he might give on the quality of evidence from detainees and how it may have been obtained.  This much more likely really than the first thought.  I dunno, I just don’t know or understand the process for these Kanga Kourts well enough.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: klynn</title>
		<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/01/acting-counsels/comment-page-1/#comment-61649</link>
		<dc:creator>klynn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 03:44:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/01/acting-counsels/#comment-61649</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Kentucky. He’s out on the road again.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kentucky. He’s out on the road again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: emptywheel</title>
		<link>http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/01/acting-counsels/comment-page-1/#comment-61643</link>
		<dc:creator>emptywheel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 03:31:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/04/01/acting-counsels/#comment-61643</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Not sure it would. It depends on the scope for which the defendants could convince the judge to allow Davis to testify. If it’s to things that Haynes said (such as “we can’t have acquittals”) then I suspect he’ll still be on the stand. If it’s just to the underlying logic of the treatment of detainees, who knows…&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not sure it would. It depends on the scope for which the defendants could convince the judge to allow Davis to testify. If it’s to things that Haynes said (such as “we can’t have acquittals”) then I suspect he’ll still be on the stand. If it’s just to the underlying logic of the treatment of detainees, who knows…</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
