Aussie Prosecutors' Vendetta Targets Ex-Guantanamo Detainee's Book Proceeds

Australian news sources have announced that the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) have initiated legal actions to seize the royalties former Guantanamo detainee David Hicks has earned from the publication of his autobiography, Guantanamo: My Journey. The book was published last year by Random House Australia, and has reportedly sold upwards of 30,000 copies. No U.S. publisher has bought rights to the book, and it remains unavailable through U.S. booksellers.

Terry Hicks, David’s father, called the move “absolutely disgusting,” and according to my sources, the Hicks family is said to be “devastated.”

According to a report by The Australian, under Australia's Commonwealth Proceeds of Crime Act "a person cannot profit from proceeds derived from the commercial exploitation of their criminal notoriety arising from a foreign indictable offence." The "offense" in this case is Hicks' guilty plea before the spurious U.S. military commissions to supposedly "providing material support to terrorism."

But as Australian barrister Ben Saul, who has advised Hicks in various matters, noted last February, responding to earlier propaganda beseeching the Australian government to confiscate Hicks' book earnings:

Yet, it is almost certain that such offence did not exist in law at the time of Hicks’ conduct. As a result, his conviction is retrospective and contrary to international law. The conviction for that bogus offence also resulted from a procedurally unfair trial, and probably torture.

Saul also commented in the same article on the irony that calls have gone out to confiscate any profits David Hicks might receive from his book, while former Australian Prime Minister John Howard is free to profit from his own memoir, recently published, Lazarus Rising. Howard, Saul notes "has evaded comparable scrutiny, principally because his suspected crime - the illegal, aggressive invasion of Iraq - is not covered by Australia’s proceeds of crime laws."

Indeed, not only was Howard guilty of using his executive powers to commit Australian forces to the U.S.-organized 2003 invasion of Iraq, he was also heavily involved in decisions made around the incarceration of Hicks himself, as the former Guantanamo detainee and torture victim describes in his book (which again, I stress, is unavailable through routine retail outlets in the United States). It was only through the intervention of Dick Cheney, and his hand-picked military commissions Convening Authority Susan Crawford, on behalf of U.S. authorities desperate at the time to conclude at least one of their military commissions prosecutions, that a plea deal was ever struck.

Interestingly, the plea deal allowed an Alford plea, which meant Hicks could plea guilty to the single "material support" charge, while never formally agreeing to admit to guilt in his actions. In his book, Hicks clearly states that he pleaded guilty in order to get out of Guantanamo, and that up to that time, he had been in fact considering suicide.

Susan Crawford, after negotiating with my lawyers and saying no to serving less time, agreed to allow me to enter an Alford Plea if I chose, as an incentive to cooperate. Under this US legislation, a person can plead guilty without admitting to the act they are accused of. In other words, contrary to media reports, I did not ‘admit’ or ‘confess’ to providing material support to terrorism; I pleaded guilty without accepting guilt to the charge so I could return home. To plead guilty was really saying that the system was unfair and I could never win, not that I ever provided support to a terrorist organisation.

I had two choices: take the Alford Plea and face all ramifications and consequences that would follow, or return to my cell, resign myself to hopelessness and follow through with my suicide plan.

The plea bargain also included other onerous conditions, including a one-year gag order, an agreement he would assign all monies from his story to the Australian government, a statement that he was not coerced into accepting the plea bargain, and an agreement to cooperate with U.S. and Australian security officials for the rest of his life, among other ridiculous stipulations.

It is difficult to know why the CDPP has decided now to officially go after Hicks' royalties. One wonders if it had anything to do with the warm reception and ovation he received when he spoke to "a packed audience of 1000 people at the Sydney Writers' Festival" last May. At the same event, Hicks "also warned that Julian Assange could face a similar abandonment by the Australian government, if the US government get their hands on him."

Certainly the Australian government has not taken kindly to the fact that David has chosen not to remain silent about the abuses he endured, or the criminal activities that took place at Guantanamo. Last year, he submitted an affidavit (PDF) to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, detailing numerous breaches of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights relevant to his case.

One of the items concerns the charges of "material support":

In 2007, a United States (US) military commission at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, convicted Mr Hicks of the offence of ‘providing material support for terrorism’ under section 950v(25) of the Military Commission Act 2006 (USA) (‘MCA’) (Annexure C). That offence was unknown to international law or US domestic law at the time of Mr Hicks’ alleged conduct and Mr Hicks was thus subject to retroactive criminal punishment, contrary to article 15 of the ICCPR. By entering into a Prisoner Transfer Arrangement (Annexure Q) with the US, to enforce Mr Hicks’ sentence of imprisonment in an Australian prison, and by enacting related domestic legislation, Australia assumed direct responsibility for the unlawful, retrospective criminal punishment of Mr Hicks. Such conduct was not justifiable and reasonable alternatives to it were available in order to achieve the humanitarian purpose of securing Mr Hicks’ release from Guantanamo Bay.

Nevertheless, according to The Australian article, University of New South Wales law professor George Williams thought the CDPP had "a strong case." "But that is subject to a court giving weight and recognizing the validity of Hicks's plea and the conviction. This may well be an opportunity for David Hicks to open up questions about those matters," Professor Williams said.

Torture and Medical Experimentation

Why would a man plead guilty to something to which he was innocent? Why was such a plea -- or suicide -- preferable to continued detention in the U.S. Cuban island prison?

As David Hicks outlined in his book, he was subjected to numerous kinds of torture, in addition to probable medical experiments. Last February, investigative journalist Jason Leopold published at Truthout the first in-depth interview with Hicks. In his introduction, Leopold summarized the torture Hicks endured at the hands of Guantanamo authorities:

Hicks was brutally tortured. Psychologically and physically for four years, maybe longer. He was injected in the back of his neck with unknown drugs. He was sodomized with a foreign object. He spent nearly a year in solitary confinement. He was beaten once for ten hours. He was threatened with death. He was placed in painful stress positions. He was subjected to sleep deprivation. He was exposed to extremely cold temperatures, loud music and strobe lights designed to disorient his senses. He was interrogated on a near daily basis.

In Guantanamo: My Journey, Hicks described one of the medical experiments:

I was given an injection. Within an hour or so I couldn’t help but huddle in a corner of the cage. Physically, I felt comfortable, even though it was an odd thing for me to do. In the back of my mind I knew it was strange, but as long as I stayed in that corner I had no real thoughts at all. When I tried to move from that position, whether to eat or go to the toilet, I became extremely agitated and nervous. I would quickly resume my huddled position. Getting the slight shakes was another side effect of this medication. Some time on the second day I began to feel normal again and came out of the corner. I knew I had acted unusually but, because most of that period was a blank in my mind, I could not decide if the injection was responsible. I think it was the day after, when I began to feel normal again, that I was given another injection. I was scared and pleaded for them not to, but I was threatened with an IRFing if I did not cooperate. [The Immediate Reaction Force (IRF) was a riot squad mobilized to brutalize Guantanamo inmates.] A majority of detainees were being IRFed by then for refusing medication, so I just surrendered my arm, thinking that the needle might snap off in my shoulder if they jabbed me during a beating. I was quickly aware of the results. I went straight to the corner again and curled up but, unlike last time, I was under no illusions about what was happening or why. I tried to fight this chemical reaction but was powerless. My mind was clear and alert, and I could identify my behaviour as abnormal, but my body would not listen to my mind. I had no control and remained in the corner, despite wanting to move. This time around the experience was very distressing. All I could do was wait for the effects of the medication to wear off a full day later.

Once again it was the ICRC [International Committee of the Red Cross] that saved us. This period of forced injections and pills coincided with another visit from the only group of people on that island who did not wish us harm: the ICRC. Before I was given a third injection, MPs came and escorted me to an interrogation building, where I had a private interview with an ICRC employee. I pleaded with him to do something about these medical experiments. He told me that nearly every detainee he had seen so far had reported the same program and its effects. Almost instantly after that interview the injections and tablets were stopped, and I did not have to endure another injection. Instead of nearly daily doses, it went back to the normal – at least one injection every two months, including having blood samples taken.

In the United States, outrageously there has been next to no interest in pursuing charges of medical experimentation upon detainees held by the United States. Similar stories of such experiments have been given by a number of released detainees. Additionally, Jason Leopold and I have published a number of articles about the abusive administration of an unprecedented mass administration of a controversial antimalarial drug, melfoquine, known for serious neuropsychiatric effects, on all Guantanamo detainees as part of their initial in-processing. (See here, here, and here.)

A FOIA of an Inspector General report on drugging of detainees has been in process for this reporter for nearly a year, with such delay belying claims of "transparency" and prompt Freedom of Information response by the Obama Administration.

Clearly, the attempts to seize royalties from David Hicks is part of an attempt to impugn his work, and to punish or isolate him for truth-telling. Such bullying can only be stopped by international and Australian protest.

Update: The Justice Campaign, an Australian human rights, anti-torture organization formed largely to help publicize the David Hicks case has released a statement on the CDPP legal actions.

The Justice Campaign (TJC) is appalled at the news that the Australian Government has moved to recover the proceeds of David Hicks’ book, Guantanamo: My Journey.

TJC patron, the Hon. John Dowd said today “David Hicks has not been convicted of a crime in Australia. He has not been convicted of an offence under US law. There is no basis for removing any profits from the sale of his book.” Justice Dowd said.

“The Military Commissions Charges were invalid under US law and he was coerced.”

TJC spokesperson, Stephen Kenny said today “this is a blatant move to shift the focus of the Australian government’s responsibility to thoroughly and openly investigate torture allegations....

The Justice Campaign remains committed in calling for an investigation into David’s credible allegations of torture and the political interference in his eventual plea deal.

(Note: differences in spelling of some words, i.e. between U.S. and Australian spellings, has been left intact in this article, when Australian spellings were included in quoted material.)

Crossposted at FDL/The Dissenter

Will Military Torture Be Transferred to the United States?

Originally posted at Firedoglake

My last article [on this topic] reintroduced the topic of abuse and torture as being used in the current version of the Army Field Manual (AFM), and particular in its infamous "Appendix M." From time to time, the implications of actually using the AFM has theatened to break through the right-wing monopoly of discussion about government interrogation policy. Consider this exchange, last May, between NBC's Chuck Todd and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs:

Q What is he going to say to those who make the argument, which has been made, he's actually just changing rhetoric, he's not changing policy that much? With Guantanamo, you're essentially calling for a way of moving Guantanamo. You're just changing the name.

MR. GIBBS: Well, ask that question of some of our severe detractors on this and see if you get agreement on that. I actually don't think that's the case. I think what the -- the decision that the President made on military commissions is something that's envisioned that's much different than what was passed in Congress and signed by the President in late September and early October in 2006.

I think, as we've talked about here, enhanced interrogation techniques are something that this President has outlawed as part of the actions of this administration. I don't think those are --

Q Yet the fine print, there's open to interpretation about what different techniques could be used.

MR. GIBBS: How so?

Q In the argument that there's definitely some words in there that one could interpret that it's --

MR. GIBBS: Chuck, I don't think you're -- let me understand -- I don't think you're intimating that the Army Field Manual would allow one to do --

Q There have been some interpretations that there are --

MR. GIBBS: I can assure you that's not how the Army interprets the Army Field Manual, and I assume that generals in the Army and the military that are in charge of ensuring that the procedures of the military are in line with the laws of this country -- I don't think you're intimating that people in the Army are inferring different things about their own field manual, because I know that's not the case.

Gibbs appears to think that the military can be trusted to ensure "the procedures of the military are in line with the laws of this country," eviscerating the idea of Congressional oversight. What Todd calls "fine print" in the Army Field Manual -- "open to interpretation" -- others have called torture or abuse.

The President of the National Lawyers Guild Marjorie Cohn has stated that portions of the AFM protocol, especially the use of isolation and prolonged sleep deprivation, constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and is illegal under the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, the U.N. Convention Against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Hina Shamsi, an attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project, has stated that portions of the AFM are "deeply problematic" and "would likely violate the War Crimes Act and Geneva," and at the very least "leave the door open for legal liability." Physicians for Human Rights and the Constitution Project have publicly called for the removal of problematic and abusive techniques from the AFM.

The Center for Constitutional Rights wrote last year:

Appendix M of the Army Field Manual... allows the use of techniques such as prolonged isolation, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, and inducing fear and humiliation of prisoners. These techniques, especially when used in combination as permitted by the AFM, constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and in some cases, torture. These techniques have caused documented, long-lasting psychological and physical harm and were condemned by a bipartisan congressional report released last month, as well as by the Bush-appointed head of the military commissions at Guantanamo.

"In some cases, torture." As bmaz pointed out almost exactly one year ago, when Guantanamo Convening Authority judge Susan Crawford dismissed charges against Guantanamo prisoner Mohamed al-Qahtani, telling Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward that the U.S. tortured al-Qahtani:

Crawford has exposed to bright sunlight the lie that is Barack Obama’s, and other politicians’, simple minded reliance on the Army Field Manual as cover for their torture reform credentials. Interrogators can stay completely within the Army manual and still be engaging in clear, unequivocal torture under national and international norms, laws and conventions.

Now -- all delays due to 23-year-old would-be bombers aside -- Obama is set to transfer the Guantanamo regime to a nearly abandoned, rural Illinois prison. Will that include the transfer of Appendix M interrogations, and other abusive elements of the AFM protocol? These are questions we need to be asking. Or will progressive bloggers hope that Chuck Todd carries their fire for them?

Next: "Obama's Interrogation Policy and the Use of Torture in the Army Field Manual"

United States v. Daniel King (video)

Some of you may have followed my coverage of the Daniel King case, wherein Navy Chief Forensic Psychologist Michael Gelles reportedly participated in an abusive interrogation regime along with agents of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS). In early 2001, the investigating judge in the case dismissed charges against King, in part because the prosecution had forced a false confession from the 20-year Navy petty officer, who was incarcerated over 500 days without charges ever being brought.


Those interested in the King/Gelles story may now watch on-line a May 20, 2000 video of a hearing on the case, which aired on C-Span at the time. The sound for the first 14 minutes of the video is garbled, but is fine thereafter.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces heard oral arguments in the case of the United States vs. Daniel King. Mr. King was charged with passing National Security Agency secrets to the Russians while working in the United States Navy. The bulk of these arguments centered around the legality of having an armed guard present during all of counsel's meetings with the accused.

Interestingly, the Chief Judge on the Appeals panel was Susan Crawford, who later was appointed Convening Authority for the military commissions at Guantanamo. Judge Crawford famously told Bob Woodward of the Washington Post in January 2009 that U.S. interrogators had "tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani".... His treatment met the legal definition of torture." Judge Crawford subsequently declined to refer al-Qahtani for prosecution.

Attorney Jonathan Turley speaks on behalf of his client, Mr. King. The video itself (click here to play) is 1 hour, 36 minutes long.

Firedoglake Picks Up Army Field Manual Torture Story

Originally posted at Daily Kos

I was very grateful to see bmaz over at Firedoglake take up an issue I have been pushing very much at Daily Kos and elsewhere for the past few years. Really, my first big support on my opposition to using the Army Field Manual, as written, as a "single standard" for interrogations by the Pentagon and CIA, was by DKos front-pager Meteor Blades, picking up a story published by AlterNet, who also supported this story..

My objective in researching and reporting on the AFM issue was to change the public discourse about it, especially as Democrats had decided that the AFM was the perfect counterweight to the CIA's "enhanced interrogation methods." It was John McCain's idea to have the Pentagon and CIA hold to the AFM standards. But then Rumsfeld's office (or someone) ran an end run around him, rewrote the AFM, inserted techniques that amounted to psychological torture, and then battled with opponents over it for months, until finally the AFM was published the way Rumsfeld and his lieutenant, Stephen Cambone, wanted it.

Whatever the AFM was supposed to be, by September 2006 it wasn't that anymore, and not the press, or McCain, or even any bloggers were talking about it. Apparently there was an opposition from within the military, including military attorneys, and even some high officers, but they weren't going public with it, except to leak to the press. After September 2006, even those leaks stopped, possibly due to the political cave-in that was the passing of the Military Commissions Act.

There were two exceptions I was aware of, and one of them was myself. The other was Physicians for Human Rights, who opposed Appendix M from the beginning.

What is Appendix M? It is an addition to the Army Field Manual that allows for special interrogation techniques to be used against so-called "unlawful enemy combatants," such as the administration labeled the detainees at Guantanamo. In reality, the special techniques allow use of isolation/solitary confinement, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, and arguably, other procedures similar to Guantanamo's hated "frequent flyer" torture program. As a result of the inclusion of these abusive technqiues, and others, I and others have stated that the AFM fails to meet the requirements of the Geneva conventions, the UN Convention Against Torture, the War Crimes Act, and other laws and treaties.

The AFM, as rewritten, includes problematic procedures even outside of Appendix M, including a rewrite of its use of the dubious technique of "Fear Up." Whereas in the earlier version of the AFM "Fear Up" allowed exploitation of the fear a prisoner might feel upon incarceration, the new version, which is in the main section of the manual, not Appendix M, allowed for the creation of "new" fears. The change was included in a clause of only a few words. In many ways, the AFM inclusion of torture is a classic case of the devil being in the details, or in the fine print, in this case.

bmaz's article picks up where mine left off by tying the kind of treatment advocated by the AFM to the torture endured by Mohammad al-Qahtani, otherwise known as Prisoner 063, whose interrogation logs made a sensational splash when published by Time Magazine a few years ago. The military interrogation of al-Qahtani amounted to torture, Susan Crawford, the convening authority to the military commissions, admitted to Bob Woodward in a bombshell interview the other day in the Washington Post.

Noting how Crawford emphasized the combination of interrogation techniques, most of them similar to those laid out in the current AFM's Appendix M, bmaz noted:

Crawford has exposed to bright sunlight the lie that is Barack Obama's, and other politicians', simple minded reliance on the Army Field Manual as cover for their torture reform credentials. Interrogators can stay completely within the Army manual and still be engaging in clear, unequivocal torture under national and international norms, laws and conventions....

The Army Field Manual provisions, especially with those pesky footnotes like "Appendix M", leave a wide open path for torture. And this is exactly what Susan Crawford directly admitted to Bob Woodward. This is a significant problem, the very torture, and modalities thereof, that are so abhorrent are about to be ratified and enshrined into the ethos of the new Obama Administration. What is worse is that the media and the country as a whole are biting off on the proposition that the torture regime is being slain in the process, and that is simply not the case.

bmaz notes that better people are soon to inhabit some of the posts within the Defense Department and other governmental agencies, and that they want to help change the former illegal policies. But he notes that issues like the current Army Field Manual and its Appendix M stand in the way of making these changes, and calls, as I do, for its removal.

It is very difficult to affect public discourse when the bulk of the mainstream media, politicians, human rights agencies, and even big-time political bloggers keep silent. To be honest, it makes one doubt one's sanity at times. That's why I want to give a big thanks of appreciation to bmaz (and the FDL crew) and Meteor Blades, for helping to push this issue forward. There are others behind the scenes who I know have supported this, and have kept me going, and I am very grateful to them, as well.

The AFM is only one piece of the larger picture regarding the torture project undertaken by the Bush administration, and it may not even be the most important piece. But I think the background story behind it may lead us to some very interesting places. And then, for the sake of those detainees currently held by U.S. forces in Guantanamo, Baghram, and U.S. prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention CIA "black site" prisons and prison ships, I could not stay silent when right in front of my eyes I saw the implementation of a torture program, albeit without some of the more unsavory and infamous techniques, like waterboarding and sexual humiliation. Probably, it was the elimination of these that kept many from seeing for a long time exactly what was actually wrong with the Army Field Manual.

I hope you are motivated to go read bmaz's excellent piece, and not because I am prominently mentioned in it. I think bmaz did an excellent job of drawing out the current significance of the issue and applying it to an important breaking story. That's what the truth does for you: it takes disparate pieces of information and throws a light upon it that draws out its true significance.

Onward and upward to prosecutions of those involved in the planning and implementation of torture by United States officials!

Top Bush Official Admits "We Tortured Qahtani"

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani".... His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case [for prosecution]."

In a bombshell admission on the eve of the Senate hearings on Obama Attorney General nominee, Eric Holder, the Washington Post reports (in an article by Bob Woodward) that Susan Crawford, the convening authority of military commissions at Guantanamo since February 2007, investigated and determined that U.S. forces there tortured al-Qahtani during his imprisonment. The techniques included isolation, sleep deprivation, forced nudity, use of "working dogs", and prolonged exposure to cold, among other torture techniques.

Crawford, 61, said the combination of the interrogation techniques, their duration and the impact on Qahtani's health led to her conclusion. "The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent. . . . You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge" to call it torture, she said....

"I think the buck stops in the Oval Office."

Crawford also says not everyone at Guantanamo was tortured, but admits that its difficult for anyone to believe the government at this point. She lays the blame for the abuse at the feet of Rumsfeld and Bush.

Al-Qahtani became practically a household name when it was revealed that he was Detainee #063. Logs of the torture sessions were published in Time Magazine. Steven Miles wrote up al-Qahtani's case in the American Journal of Bioethics. Miles has meticulously documented the participation of doctors and other medical personnel, particularly psychologists, in the U.S. torture program. Al-Qahtani's case was a horrific exemplar of that dangerous collaboration:

In October 2002, before the time covered by the log, Army investigators found that dogs were brought to the interrogation room to growl, bark and bare their teeth at al-Qahtani. The investigators noted that a BSCT psychologist witnessed the use of the dog, Zeus, during at least one such instance, an incident deemed properly authorized to “exploit individual phobias"....

Major L. [John Leso], a psychologist who chaired the BSCT at Guantanamo, was noted to be present at the start of the interrogation log. On November 27, he suggested putting the prisoner in a swivel chair to prevent him from fixing his eyes on one spot and thereby avoiding the guards....

Many psychological “approaches” or “themes” were repetitively used. These included: “Failure/Worthless,” “Al Qaeda Falling Apart,” “Pride Down,” “Ego Down,” “Futility,” “Guilt/Sin Theme... Al-Qahtani was shown videotapes entitled “Taliban Bodies” and “Die Terrorist Die.” Some scripts aimed at his Islamic identity bore names such as “Good Muslim,” “Bad Muslim,” “Judgment Day,” “God’s Mission” and “Muslim in America"....

Although continuously monitored, interrogators repeatedly strip-searched him as a “control measure.” On at least one occasion, he was forced to stand naked with women soldiers present. Female interrogators seductively touched the prisoner under the authorized use of approaches called “Invasion of Personal Space” and “Futility"....

Some psychological routines referred to the 9/11 attacks. He was shown pictures of the attacks, and photographs of victims were affixed to his body. The interrogators held one exorcism (and threatened another) to purge evil Jinns that the disoriented, sleep deprived prisoner claimed were controlling his emotions.

As the inside word is that Obama will order Guantanamo closed, and all abusive interrogation techniques be ended, with interrogations limited only to those techniques specified in the Army Field Manual, officials associated with the Bush torture regime, both innocent and guilty (we cannot know right away who is who) are scampering for legal and moral cover.

Of course, limiting interrogation techniques to the Army's interrogation field manual leaves an open door for more abusive interrogation, as it allows the use of isolation, sleep deprivation, fear, sensory deprivation, and other techniques on those designated "unlawful enemy combatants." The U.S. may close Guantanamo, but what about the thousands of other prisoners held by the U.S. in Iraq, Afghanistan, prison ships, and CIA secret prisons? What will happen to them, if the AFM still allows some abusive techniques?

Much that Bush and Cheney have done has ended in failure. Guantanamo will close. The military commissions are a dead issue (for now). But not all they have done has been disassembled, and there will be much pressure on Obama to let some of the apparatus off the hook.

Right now, the biggest push among progressives, and with much popular support among the citizenry, is for investigations and prosecutions of the war criminals who are now leaving the White House. These should be supported with all our efforts. Bush and Cheney have both recently admitted to ordering torture.

Buhdydharma at Docudharma wrote the following today:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers has just released a 487 page report (NOTE: pdf file) whose table of contents clearly spells out what must be on AG Holders agenda in both reforming the DOJ and to effectively "reclaim America's standing in the world as a nation that cherishes and protects individual freedom and basic human rights.":

Hiring and Firing of U.S. Attorneys and other Department Personnel
Selective Prosecution
Politicization of the Prosecution Function
Politicization of the Civil Rights Division and Voting Rights Enforcement
Detention
Enhanced Interrogation
Ghosting and Black Sites
Extraordinary Rendition
Warrantless Domestic Surveillance
National Security Letters (NSLs) and Exigent Letters
Use of Signing Statements
Midnight Rulemaking
The Leak of Valerie Plame Wilson's Covert CIA Identity
Improper Use of State Secrets and Other Authorities
Manipulation and Misuse of Intelligence

There is far more than probable cause to prosecute major figures of the Bush Administration, the Pentagon, and the CIA (and possibly DIA) for crimes against humanity, such as starting an aggressive war, and implementation of torture and abusive, inhumane treatment of prisoners. There is ample legal precedent to charge these individuals. If we do not do it, it should be undertaken by another willing nation.

A huge political battle will be waged over these issues in the next weeks and months. All progressives and anti-torture advocates should be ready to counter moves from the entrenched opposition centered in sections of the Pentagon and the CIA.

In the meantime, Susan Crawford has just thrown a dangerous projectile into the ranks of these criminals, and it's all the more satisfying as it comes from their own ranks. We should not expect too many more such "betrayals." The greatest danger will be thinking the closure of Guantanamo will really end things. It will only be one battle won. There will be more losses and victories before we see the end.

Update: The following was spurred by a comment by Nightprowlkitty in the comments to the Daily Kos crossposting to this article:

Torture is never legal. It is a jus cogens, a norm from which no derogation is permitted. Really these people are outside the pale, outside the law. Only the law can handle it though. But the sentences, if convicted, can be tough. Scott Horton reminded us the other day that the execution of Charles I of England, over 400 years ago, was for torture:

The charge, repeated the prosecutor, was that the executive had violated the laws of nations in that he authorized or indulged the torture and brutal mistreatment of prisoners taken in wartime. The commissioners deliberated and rendered their verdict: The charge against the defendant was sustained, the defendant was guilty as charged. And then the punishment was fixed. How does one punish an executive for violation of the laws of nations by authorizing the torture of prisoners? The verdict was that he be taken to a place of execution, where his head was to be severed from his body by an axe.

In today's column, Horton said this about Crawford's admission:

This admission is important for several reasons. First, it is an acknowledgement of criminal conduct by the administration by one of its own team. Second, Crawford very properly abandons the absurd legalisms of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel which essentially boil down to “if the president authorizes it, that means it’s legal.” Third, she has apparently evaluated “torture” on the basis of the totality of the treatment meted out by interrogators and jailers to the prisoner, not by segmenting and evaluating each individual technique applied. That is what the law requires, and what the Justice Department studiously ignores, fully aware of the inevitable conclusion to which it would lead. It adds up to another admission of high crimes. The case for criminal accountability continues to build.