"Befehl ist Befehl" Holder Overturns Justice Jackson and Nuremberg

[kpete]

Holder Overturns Justice Jackson and Nuremberg
By: Peterr Tuesday August 25, 2009 7:05 am

Attorney General Eric Holder said it before, and he said it again yesterday (emphasis added):
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2009/ag-testimony-090824.html

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.

And with these words, Holder baptized the infamous OLC memos as legally binding doctrine that validates the conduct of anyone who wishes to offer the same defense put forward by the defendants at Nuremberg: "Befehl ist Befehl," or in English, "an order is an order."

more:
http://firedoglake.com/2009/08/25/holder-throws-justice-jackson-and-nuremberg-under-the-bus/

[kentuck]

1. "I was only following orders."

That defense did not work before and it will not work now. You are responsible for your own actions and deeds. Even if you work for the CIA.

[Solly Mack]

2. K&R

Yeppers

[redqueen]

3. Unbelievable.

:grr:

[Soylent Brice]

4. what a sad state of affairs.

K&R

[madokie]

5. I read that as saying

that they in fact will be going after the perpertrators. How else can that be read I ask.

[mmonk]

6. Yes, I made the comment about the OLC in one of the threads here

which asked those of us who have been skeptical and critical about Holder and investigations what we had to say.

[Call Me Wesley]

7. Include Adolf Eichmann in there, too.

Unbelievable.

[Captain Hilts]

8. Spencer Tracy is going to be pissed!

ST: What the fuck?

[madrchsod]

9. i bet senator dodd`s dad is weeping ....

we have become them

[Octafish]

10. Gott mit Uns.

Himmel helfen Sie uns.

[Buzz Clik]

11. It's a helluva lot more subtle than that.

Interrogators are able to do a lot of ugly things to detainees and stay within the law. The question is, "Where is the line?" If the interrogators blindly follow every order that comes their way, then, yes, question their judgment and hold them accountable to some degree. But, when they repeatedly seek clarification, and the OLC guarantees that their actions they are being told to perform are 100% legal, I'm not so sure we can toss them in with those who were killing millions in gas ovens.

You really do need to ratchet back the Nuremberg comparisions.

[Metta]

12. He defended Chicita Banana's support of Columbian death squads.

Do not expect these recommendations to be carried forward if Eric Holder decides to forgo his lucrative corporate law practice at Covington & Burling and accept the U.S. Attorney General position for which many believe he is the top contendor. Eric Holder would have a troubling conflict of interest in carrying out this work in light of his current work as defense lawyer for Chiquita Brands international in a case in which Colombian plaintiffs seek damages for the murders carried out by the AUC paramilitaries - a designated terrorist organization. Chiquita has already admitted in a criminal case that it paid the AUC around $1.7 million in a 7-year period and that it further provided the AUC with a cache of machine guns as well.

Indeed, Holder himself, using his influence as former deputy attorney general under the Clinton Administration, helped to negotiate Chiquita's sweeheart deal with the Justice Department in the criminal case against Chiquita. Under this deal, no Chiquita official received any jail time. Indeed, the identity of the key officials involved in the assistance to the paramilitaries were kept under seal and confidential. In the end, Chiquita was fined a mere $25 million which it has been allowed to pay over a 5-year period. This is incredible given the havoc wreaked by Chiquita's aid to these Colombian death squards.

According to Mario Iguaran, the Attorney General of Colombia, Chiquita's payments to the AUC paramilitaries led to the murder of 4000 civilians in the banana region of Colombia and furthered the growth of the paramilitaries throughout Colombia and their violent takeover of numerous Colombian regions. Iguaran, in response to the claims of both Chiquita and Eric Holder himself that Chiquita was somehow forced to pay "protection" to the paramilitaries (see, Washington Post and Conde Nast Portfolio), stated unequivocally that "his was not payment of extortion money. It was support for an illegal armed group whose methods included murder." See, Christian Science Monitor, "Chiquita Case Puts Big Firms on Notice."

One former paramilitary leader who is in federal custody in the U.S., Salvatore Mancuso, has stated that he has more knowledge about Chiquita's relationship with the paramilitary death squads in Colombia. Mancuso further claims that Dole and Del Monte also made payments to the paramilitaries, just as Chiquita did. Yet, Dole and Del Monte remain un-indicted. Query whether, as Human Rights Watch recommends, a Justice Department under Holder would be interested in pursuing this and other similar leads. This is a serious matter given the fact that the Justice Department has already come under great scrutiny for turning a blind eye to what appears to be rampant corporate support for terrorist groups in Colombia. See, L.A. Times, "U.S. accused of bending rules on Colombian Terror."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/lawyer-for-chiquita-in-co_b_141919.html

[flyarm]

13. NOTHING i DIDN'T EXPECT!.. how is FISA working for everyone ????????n/t

[HamdenRice]

14. You are confusing "orders" with "legal opinions"--it's not the same at all

We've discussed this ad infinitum, but what the heh.

"I was just following orders" is not a defense to being charged with committing a crime.

But if you decline to follow an order, but instead ask for a legal opinion, not from the person giving you the order, but from the highest law enforcement agency in the country, as to whether the order is legal, and that highest law enforcement agency in the country says, "if you do this, you will not be committing a crime," and if you follow that legal opinion, then that law enforcement agency cannot turn around and prosecute you. It doesn't mean you have not committed a crime. It doesn't mean you are innocent. It means that that particular law enforcement agency cannot prosecute you because it advised you that the act was legal.

That's what Holder is saying.

It's actually closer to "estoppel" than it is to exoneration of the criminal act. The torturer is not innocent, but the law enforcement agency (the Justice Department) is "estopped" from prosecuting a person it gave a legal opinion to.

[mike_c]

15. that's why U.S. war criminals should be packed off to The Hague...

...for the ICC to deal with, IMO.

[HamdenRice]

17. That's actually a good point

Because the DOJ isn't saying they are innocent. They are recognizing that they, the DOJ, cannot prosecute because they gave the opinion.

It's possible that even a state court might be able to assert jurisdiction, though I don't think they would.

[gratuitous]

20. But if the opinion itself is patently ungrounded in law or fact

It's a sticky wicket, to be sure, but the Justice Department's fealty to its predecessors isn't a suicide pact. Just because a corrupt government official signed off on a policy or order, that doesn't or shouldn't absolve the perpetrator, the endorser, or the author of the policy from responsibility.

Can the Justice Department investigate and prosecute itself? Clearly not; the conflicts are so obvious and inherent that they cannot be overcome. The system can't be made to address this. A special prosecutor to investigate the Justice Department? Possibly, but there is still a glaring appearance of impropriety. The only way I can see to resolve an allegation of corruption or professional malfeasance against the Justice Department is by outside counsel wholly independent of the Department. The situation is fraught with peril, viz. our own Inspector Javert, Ken Starr, and his ever-expanding inquiry into the Clintons' Whitewater investment, aided and abetted by corrupt federal judge David Sentelle, who remains on the bench to this day.

That being said, I'd say turn this over to Lawrence Tribe, overseen by Judge Royce Lamberth, and ignore entirely the predictable howls from the usual suspects.

[Echo In Light]

16. "act in good faith." = pure poison

[flyarm]

18. Someone should file a lawsuit against Holder, because what he is proposeing is Unconstitutional!

worlds biggest con job..vote Obama for change..what a freaking joke!

[izzybeans]

19. "within the scope of legal guidance"

So what if the guidance is to perform acts that are illegal? Is this "legal guidance" or "illegal guidance" Mr. Holder?

[Buzz Clik]

21. Do you have any concept of the importance of the OLC?

that's a rhetorical question.

[bvar22]

22. Obama/Holder...Torture is All OK......

...if you have a note from your lawyer.

How The Fuck does someone TORTURE "in good faith"?
THAT is twisted.
:thumbsdown: