Attorney General Eric Holder (WDCpix)

Attorney General Eric Holder surely knew he’d be facing a tough audience when he prepared to testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. That may be why instead of delivering the written testimony he’d prepared, he focused his opening remarks on explaining his decision, announced last Friday, to try the alleged co-conspirators of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in a New York federal court.

So it’s significant that today they’ve released a report calling on the United States to follow its legal obligation to prosecute the leaders in the U.S. government responsible for the “torture, cruel and inhuman treatment” of detainees during its own “war on terror.”

“Investigations and prosecutions should focus on the engineers of official policies that were the basis of illegal abuses, to send a clear signal that the absolute prohibition of torture and the ban on cruel and inhuman treatment will be respected by the United States,” the report said, adding that if the U.S. government fails to initiate prosecutions, then other countries will take up the cause. Italy, for example, recently convicted 23 Americans for their involvement in “extraordinary renditions.”

“Failing to hold accountable the architects and overseers of a policy of abuse undermines the U.S. justice system and the fundamental idea that law provides a check on power,” Alex Boraine, acting president of ICTJ, said in a statement today. “As we have seen in countless examples around the world, abuse of power by allowing torture and cruel treatment can tear down what the law and democracy have built.”

While there’s support among many Democrats for some sort of accountability, whether through criminal prosecutions or an independent truth commission, Republicans vehemently resist any suggestion that the Bush administration even did anything wrong.

Since Attorney General Eric Holder announced on Friday that the Justice Department would try the alleged 9/11 co-conspirators in a U.S. federal court in New York, some Republicans have denounced the move as an illegitimate attempt to put the Bush administration, rather than the terrorists, on trial.

“The government is going to try to put Khalid Sheik Mohammed on trial. Defense lawyers will try and put the government on trial,” former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani told Fox News.

Tom Ridge, head of the Department of Homeland Security during the Bush administration, added that any effort to use the 9/11 trial to “delve into a fishing expedition” to go after Bush officials is “wrong and unconscionable.”

Meanwhile, in The Wall Street Journal today, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo — a potential target of any future criminal prosecution of Bush officials — attacked the decision to try the 9/11 detainees in federal court as a dangerous mistake. “The treatment of the 9/11 attacks as a criminal matter rather than as an act of war will cripple American efforts to fight terrorism,” Yoo wrote. “It is in effect a declaration that this nation is no longer at war.”

Coll:

In an essay entitled “Reading the Taliban,” Joanna Nathan of the International Crisis Group updates some of her work on Taliban propaganda and communications strategies. Her analysis of the repetitious themes in Taliban magazines and DVDs—the recapitulation of Guantánamo imprisonment stories as folk culture narrative; the amplification of Pashtun grievances around ethnic revenge killings and notoriously corrupt figures such as the Uzbek commander General Dostum—is particularly chilling.

Hmm, so, uh, Guantanamo Bay, eh? Perhaps former Vice President Dick Cheney will want to retract this:

Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that American interrogation practices were a “recruitment tool” for the enemy. On this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have supposedly fallen short of our own values. This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It’s another version of that same old refrain from the Left, “We brought it on ourselves.”

I’m sure he’ll get right on that.

An Italian judge sentenced 23 former CIA agents to up to eight years in prison on Wednesday for the abduction of a Muslim cleric in a landmark ruling against the “rendition” flights used by the former U.S. government.

The Americans were tried in absentia for the 2003 kidnapping, in a case that garnered headlines around the world.

Yesterday, Jonathan Hafetz, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who represented Al-Marri in his challenge to military detention, told The New York Times that the sentence by a federal judge was “a powerful reminder that America’s civilian courts can deliver justice even in the most challenging circumstances.” But David Rivkin, a former Reagan-era Justice Department official and strong supporter of military commissions to try suspected terrorists had a different take. Criminal courts are “ill-suited” to terror cases because the sentences are “a crap-shoot,” he said, adding that military commissions “arrive at a better judgment, being comprised of warriors, as to what level of danger the person poses.”

Al-Marri, a legal U.S. resident living in Peoria, Ill., before his arrest in late 2001, spent almost six years in a U.S. Navy brig in South Carolina without charge, mostly in isolation. Shortly before his case questioning the legality of his indefinite detention on U.S. soil was set to reach the Supreme Court,  the Obama administration transferred him to civilian custody, incarcerated him in a federal prison and prepared for his trial in federal court. But prosecutors agreed to accept a plea bargain, in which Al-Marri admitted that he’d been ordered by al-Qaeda official Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to move to the United States from his native Qatar and await instructions. Al-Marri moved his wife and five children to Peoria and he enrolled at Bradley University, where he had studied earlier. He admitted in his plea that he “researched online information related to various cyanide compounds” and communicated with other al-Qaeda operatives.

When al-Marri was arrested in December 2001 on charges of financial fraud, he hadn’t carried out any terrorist acts. But 18 months after his arrest, the government dropped the criminal charges and named al-Marri an “enemy combatant,” which in the Bush administration’s view, gave the government the right to hold him indefinitely in military custody. He remained at the Navy big, without charge or trial, until February.

Whether it’s legal for the United States to imprison indefinitely a lawful U.S. resident in a military prison on U.S. soil remains an open question, largely because the Obama administration did not give the Supreme Court an opportunity to rule on it. That may have been a strategic move designed to leave open the possibility of using that power again, particularly since President Obama promised to close the Guantanamo Bay prison by January 2010, but hasn’t yet decided what to do with many of the detainees imprisoned there.

For Al-Marri, however, it means he will now serve another eight years in prison. (He faced up to 15 years, but the judge agreed to consider the time he’d already served.) Al-Marri yesterday tearfully apologized for helping al-Qaeda and said he no longer wants to harm the American people.

Notwithstanding Rivkin’s criticism of the federal court’s sentence, it’s worth noting that in the two contested cases where terror suspects were sentenced by military commissions for similarly assisting al-Qaeda, both received lighter sentences. Salim Hamdan, for example, Osama bin Laden’s driver, was sentenced by a military jury of “warriors” to just five and a half years in prison, and given credit for time served. He’s already back home in Yemen. In the other case, Australian David Hicks pleaded guilty to providing material support for terrorism and was sentenced to only nine months in prison. A former kangaroo-skinner, Hicks is now home.

Take the nomination of Dawn Johnsen, Obama’s pick to the head the Office of Legal Counsel, which provides critical legal advice to the president. The OLC, of course, is the same office that got into all sorts of trouble under the Bush administration, and several of its former lawyers are the subject of a much-awaited report from the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, which reportedly has concluded that the lawyers violated legal ethics in recommending President George W. Bush permit the abuse of detainees and other suspensions of constitutional rights in the so-called “war on terror.” That report, although reportedly drafted last year, is apparently still being reviewed by the very lawyers it apparently censures, and is likely being edited and potentially watered-down as a result.

But even as President Obama says he wants to look forward, not back, he’s not exactly pushing very hard to get a new director for that Office of Legal Counsel confirmed so she can lead his legal department on its forward march. The nomination of Johnsen, a highly-respected law professor who was second-in-command at OLC under President Clinton, was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee with full Democratic support in March. She has yet to get a full Senate vote — though back in May, Attorney General Eric Holder called her confirmation “probably my top priority.”

Republicans have made clear that they’ll fight the Johnsen nomination and slow the voting process down, even though it seems clear Democrats have enough votes to confirm her. GOP lawmakers have painted Johnsen as a radical for publicly challenging some of the advice given by the Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush years. And during her confirmation hearings, some Republicans seized on the fact that Johnsen was a lawyer for the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) early in her career, and 20 years ago was one of ten co-authors on a brief in which there was a footnote that some Republicans found objectionable.

With the health care debate ongoing and the president staking much of the success of his first term on its outcome, the Obama administration may not have much interest in pushing the Johnsen nomination just now, since Republicans will likely insist on cloture — and the 30 hours of debate that comes with it — which would detract from the president’s current mission.

As a result, according to the White House and Senate staffers, a vote on the Johnsen nomination isn’t even on the calendar yet.

The provision was proposed by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Ct.), as Steven Aftergood of Secrecy News explains, specifically “to thwart a successful FOIA lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union” which wants the government to turn over photos documenting abuse of detainees in U.S. military custody.  I wrote about the bill and its progress last week here. Although a federal appeals court ruled last year that the government must produce those unclassified photos under the Freedom of Information Act, the government has refused, and filed a petition to the Supreme Court for review.

The Supreme Court hasn’t yet decided whether it will hear the case, though, and given that Congress may resolve the matter by hiding the unclassified photographs with this legislation, Solicitor General Elena Kagan last week asked the court to put off deciding, since it looks like Congress is prepared to decide the matter — and conceal the photographs — on its own.

“From an open government point of view, it is dismaying that Congress would intervene to alter the outcome of an ongoing Freedom of Information Act proceeding,” writes Aftergood in his blog, which has done a terrific job of exposing the government’s efforts to hide what’s supposed to be public information. Aftergood adds that the move reveals Congress doesn’t have much confidence in its own Freedom of Information Act, the federal courts interpreting it, or the principles behind it, if it feels the need to exempt this specific set of photos from the law’s purview.

On the other hand, he notes that it could be worse: the Supreme Court could have taken the case and upheld the Obama administration’s right to exempt the photos “simply because they may pose an unspecified danger to unspecified persons.” “Such a Supreme Court ruling would have left a gaping hole in the Freedom of Information Act even larger than what the Obama Administration and Congress have now created,” writes Aftergood.

Or, of course, the Supreme Court might have just done its job, and recognized, as the two lower courts who’ve heard this case did, that unclassified documents can’t be concealed based simply on the executive’s fear that exposing government wrongdoing will incite anger at the United States and endanger national security. After all, if preventing anger at the United States were a legitimate reason to conceal unclassified information about the government, then there would be considerably less Information left for the Act to protect.

The first and better-known case involves whether the executive branch has the right to refuse to release photos of detainees abused by U.S. officials in overseas prisons simply because it fears the photos could spark violence against U.S. troops. Lawyers for detainees, such as American Civil Liberties Union attorney Amrit Singh, have insisted that the photographs “provide visual proof that prisoner abuse by U.S. personnel was not aberrational but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib,” and therefore their disclosure is “critical for helping the public understand the scope and scale of prisoner abuse as well as for holding senior officials accountable for authorizing or permitting such abuse.”

Meanwhile, Republicans and others have argued that the photographs’ release “will serve no public good, but will empower al-Qaeda propaganda operations, hurt our country’s image, and endanger our men and women in uniform,” as Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) wrote to President Obama in May. Days later, Obama announced that he had changed his mind and decided not to release the photos, although he’d previously agreed to turn them over. Whether potential “harm” to the troops by unspecified persons abroad is sufficient to trump the public interest in access to information embodied in the Freedom of Information Act is the question the Supreme Court will consider, if it decides tomorrow to review the case.

The second big terror-related case questions whether a court can order the U.S. government to release Guantanamo detainees into the United States if the court has already determined that the government has no right to keep holding them and the government has not found anywhere else for them to go. The situation arises in the case of the Chinese Muslim Uighurs, all of whom have all been cleared for release. Although four were released to Bermuda earlier this year, 13 remain imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay because they cannot return to China, where they would likely face persecution. The United States has refused to accept them. The D.C. Circuit Court earlier this year ruled that the courts cannot order them released into the United States; only the president and the Department of Homeland Security have that power.

Perhaps in an effort to keep the issue away from the Supreme Court, the administration last week announced that the Pacific Island nation of Palau had agreed to take most of the remaining Uighur prisoners that have yet to be released. But it did not agree to take one of the 13 prisoners left, who is reportedly mentally ill. He and his brother, then, will remain at Guantanamo. If Palau had taken all of them, their case — and the Supreme Court’s chance to review the president’s authority — would have become moot.

What’s remarkable about both cases is that the Obama administration has taken essentially the same position as did the Bush administration before it. Tomorrow the high court will decide whether it will review and potentially reverse those positions, as it has in several other key rulings that dealt a blow to the Bush administration’s counterterrorism policies regarding executive power and the treatment of war-on-terror detainees.

[W]e never imagined that we would feel duty-bound to publicly denounce a vice president of the United States, a man who has served our country for many years. In light of the irresponsible statements recently made by former Vice President Dick Cheney, however, we feel we must repudiate his dangerous ideas — and his scare tactics.

We have seen how ill-conceived policies that ignored military law on the treatment of enemy prisoners hindered our ability to defeat al Qaeda. We have seen American troops die at the hands of foreign fighters recruited with stories about tortured Muslim detainees at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. And yet Cheney and others who orchestrated America’s disastrous trip to “the dark side” continue to assert — against all evidence — that torture “worked” and that our country is better off for having gone there.

Read the whole thing.

“Medical doctors and psychologists colluded with the CIA to keep observational records about waterboarding, which approaches unethical and unlawful human experimentation,” PHR medical adviser and lead report author Scott Allen, M.D., said in a statement released with the report.

Physicians, for example, would monitor detainees’ reactions to having their breathing blocked by a cloth over their head and try to figure out at what point the person feels helpless and out of control. As I noted in my story today about sleep deprivation, “learned helplessness” was one of the major goals of the CIA’s interrogation program, which operated on the false belief that a detainee who believes he is helpless will provide whatever information the interrogator is asking for. (The flaw in the plan is that the information is often false.)

Dr. Steven Miles, author of Oath Betrayed: America’s Torture Doctors, makes a similar observation about possible unethical human experimentation in an appendix to the second edition of his book.

He writes: “Circumstantial evidence is leading me to believe that abusive research may have been done at Guantanamo and that an investigation of this matter is needed.” That circumstantial evidence is based on the “interrogation log” of Mohammed al-Qahtani, which “meticulously record[s] the prisoner’s tears and bathroom privileges, digressions on dinosaurs and reactions to the interrogators playing checkers.”  Miles continues:

The peculiar content and structure of this document makes sense if it is the log of research on coercive interrogation. This would account for why it focuses on the emotions and interactions of the prisoner, rather than on the questions that were asked and the information that was obtained. From the nature of prior CIA interrogation research and the log, it is possible to infer a design of the research project. As a research log, this log appears to be a chronological recording of clusters of stimuli (a stressor and a Theme) and responses.

PHR’s Scott Allen adds: “It is profoundly unsettling to learn of the central role of health professionals in laying a foundation for US government lawyers to rationalize the CIA’s illegal torture program.”