Lawsuit demands Obama administration release Guantanamo torture tapes. Is torture a state secret?

[Karmadillo]

The details of the torture, taken from a log obtained by Time magazine, are terrible. The article is worth reading in its entirety.

http://wsws.org/articles/2012/jan2012/tort-j12.shtml

Lawsuit demands that Obama administration release Guantanamo torture tapes
By Tom Carter
12 January 2012

<edit>

The lawsuit filed Monday targets the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, the FBI and the CIA, charging that these entities failure to turn over the tapes pursuant to the FOIA request cannot be justified. The CCR has argued that there is a crucial public interest to be served by their release.

“The story of Mohammed al-Qahtani summarizes everything that is abhorrent about Guantanamo,” explained CCR Legal Director Baher Azmy in a press release. “Yet 10 years after the opening of the prison camp, the whole story, in all its horror, still remains to be told. The American people are entitled to know exactly how the government has betrayed fundamental American values and the rule of law. That will not happen until these videotapes are released.”

<edit>

In 2008, the Bush administration dropped all charges against al-Qahtani, but simultaneously refused to release him. In an interview with Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, Bush administration official Susan J. Crawford said: "We tortured Qahtani. His treatment met the legal definition of torture.” The military tribunal did not want to move forward on his case because, she explained, the military feared that the details of his torture would emerge.

The Obama administration, which is refusing to turn over the tapes, has a policy of aggressively moving to block any legal action that threatens to reveal government criminality, from the suppression of the Abu Graib torture photographs to intervening to shut down legal cases that threaten to reveal corporate involvement in torture. Asserting authoritarian legal doctrines developed by Bush administration lawyers, the Obama administration consistently argues that evidence of torture constitutes a “state secret,” and that the judicial branch is not permitted to interfere with the president’s exercise of his “wartime powers.”

more...

[phasma ex machina]

1. k&r

[lovuian]

2. Obama's refusal to give over the tapes

makes him an accessory to the crime

It isn't going away in fact is going to fester and fester

[babylonsister]

3. Perhaps there's a reason why this admin isn't doing this that you aren't privy to?nt

[Summer Hathaway]

4. That's a silly assertion

The people on DU know absolutely everything about everything.

It's amazing that Obama isn't the perfect president. God knows he gets all the free advice he could possibly need, on every topic imaginable, on this site every day.

[Fumesucker]

6. People often have reasons for committing crimes..

Just because there's a reason something is done doesn't necessarily change the legal status of an act.

[Summer Hathaway]

10. The OP being discussed here

is not about a crime; it is about public access to evidence.

As BabylonSister pointed out, there may be reasons for not releasing such evidence to the public. That is exactly what the judge in this case will be deciding.

You seem to be implying that the denial of such public access is a crime, which it is not. It will ultimately be up to a judge to determine whether said public access is appropriate and justified, or whether other factors, once weighed and considered, justify the initial decision to keep such evidence from public view.

Therefore, the 'legal status of an act' in this situation is not under judicial review, nor are the 'reasons for committing crimes'.

A judge may ultimately determine that evidence of a crime - in this case, torture, which is an illegal act - is appropriately given over to citizens seeking its disclosure, or may rule that that disclosure is inappropriate in the circumstances.

[Fumesucker]

11. My standard is: How would I feel if it was Dubya doing something?

If Dubya were doing this I'd be highly suspicious that a crime was being deliberately covered up.

Why should I not think the same now that Obama is president?

Failure to prosecute clear evidence of torture is itself a crime.

[Summer Hathaway]

17. I never equate Dubya with Obama

Two very different people with very different ideas and ideals.

My suspicions about Bush's motives (or, more accurately, Cheney's motives - as I don't believe W knew what was going most of the time) do not extend to Obama.

That is not to say Obama's policies should not be questioned; it IS to say that based on the man's performance as POTUS thus far, I have much less reason for suspicion as to his actions than I had of Cheney's.

With regard to the comment that "failure to prosecute clear evidence of torture is itself a crime", I must respectfully disagree.

Every day, district attorneys choose not to prosecute crimes on the basis that they know they don't have a winnable case. That doesn't mean they are complicit in the crime alleged in any way, not are they guilty of any crime themselves.

[Fumesucker]

18. District Attorneys also choose not to prosecute for political reasons..

Which is what I think is going on with the torture prosecutions.

It would seem that your standards for behavior change according to the person who is doing the particular behavior, that strikes me as morally questionable. If something is wrong when Dubya did it then it's wrong when Obama does it.

[Summer Hathaway]

20. My standards don't change

but the people judged by those standards do.

You are already assuming wrongdoing here; I'm not. I may be proven right or wrong in that assessment as things unfold; but as things stand now, all of the facts are far from being known.

W's behavior - not only as prez, but throughout his political career - amply proved that he was not to be trusted. With Obama, I have no such qualms, because his past performance has not led me to judge him as untrustworthy, or more likely to do the wrong thing than the right thing.

Politics plays a part in many aspects of life; that's the way things are. And despite what some people here may believe (or hope), that is not going to change overnight, or be wiped out by any one president.

[Fumesucker]

21. If you accept behavior from one person that you don't from another..

Then your standards are changing.

I've seen Obama do exactly the opposite of what he said he was going to do often enough to have no illusions left about him.

Is he better than Republicans? Yes.

Is that enough? No.

[Summer Hathaway]

22. Perhaps I was not clear

I didn't say that I "accept" behavior from one person and not another.

I said that based on their past performance, I am more trusting of some people than others. I trust Obama way more than I would ever trust Bush/Cheney.

Thus far, there has been no wrongdoing proven nor disproven in the situation cited in the OP, with respect to withholding certain evidence from the public.

A judge will eventually decide whether there is a valid reason to do so or not, as the case may be.

[Fumesucker]

30. Yes, and judges decided the Citizens United case..

Do you think those judges were correct in their decision?

[Summer Hathaway]

32. You do have a talent

for changing the topic - or rather I should say diverting it, so that it comes around to where you want it to be.

No, I don't think those judges were correct in their decision.
Which is neither here nor there.

Are you suggesting that all judges are corrupt, easily bought, easily swayed by their political friends - or enemies?

Or is everyone, in your view, "the enemy"?

Is everything a conspiracy designed to confound good men and thwart good intentions? Is there no one in your world who is worthy of trust - or is everyone to be eyed with equal suspicion, equal disdain?

I have read many of your posts. You seem incapable of seeing anything good, anywhere, in anyone. For that I feel truly sorry.

[Fumesucker]

34. The point being that people have opinions about laws and court decisions..

And if someone's opinion happens to differ from that of a particular court on a legal matter that does not automatically make that person wrong, indeed the courts themselves often differ regarding legal matters.

Peculiar that you have seen so many of my posts, your screen name is relatively memorable and yet I can recall only seeing a few of your posts and that only since the move to DU3.

On January 21, 2009 I put up this post in the photography forum with a picture I took that morning, the morning after Obama's inauguration, if you read the comments to my post you'll see I was positive about Obama, it's Obama's performance in office since then that has left me less than positive about him.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=280x49419

I see beauty all around me and sometimes try to capture that beauty, at one time I did it with film, these days I do it digitally.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=280x93258

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10361256

Unfortunately I see very little beauty in politics.

Hopefully you are now done with remotely dissecting my personality Dr Frist, you are every bit as accurate about me as he was about Terry Schiavo.

[treestar]

26. The law is the same whether Dubya is President or not

Failure to prosecute has never been a crime. How would that even be possible? It would have to be a Stalinesque regime. Who would decide who to prosecute then?

Why not wait for the legal decision? Oh, I guess because what you instinctively think is supposed to be the law automatically?

[Fumesucker]

29. It's fascinating to me how much less DU is interested in war crimes now..

Than it was when Dubya was president..

Do you think the Citizens United decision was correct or do you think the SCOTUS made an error in that case?

[WillyT]

31. Yeah... And It's Usually Called Cover Your Ass...

Some day... when we finally can derive what is actually worth classifying, from that "classified" information which would cause political embarrassment, or possible criminality, I'll be all for protecting classified information, but until that time... no way.

[Summer Hathaway]

33. And sometimes it's just called

"not appropriately given over to the public for the following reasons ..."

But you apparently know what is withheld for reasons of "political embarrassment, or possible criminality" - I fail to understand why the Obama administration doesn't just defer to your better judgement.

[Karmadillo]

5. Or perhaps they're just covering up war crimes.

[_ed_]

7. I remember Republicans using that line to defend

Bush. I didn't find it convincing then, either.

[T S Justly]

8. K&R (nt)

[EFerrari]

9. Kick

[G_j]

12. it never ends

the crimes, the excuses, the cover ups, seems we are not supposed to even have a "moral compass", it's all negotiable.

[G_j]

13. k

[SidDithers]

14. wsws.org. LOL...nt

Sid

[Karmadillo]

19. Any incorrect facts in the article, Sid?

[Solly Mack]

15. K&R

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/10/10081516-tortured-guantanamo-bay-prisoner-seeks-release-of-secret-videos
http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,1071230,00.html

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. I'm ever so glad that this administration has tried, convicted, and imprisoned the torturers.

Not only that, but they are aggressively pursuing those that ordered the torture and the commanders that ignored the torture.....oh, never mind.

[annabanana]

23. sigh. . . . look forward, don't look back.. or

Dont' look behind you, but the rot is gaining on you.

[treestar]

24. Right on cue

Condemn the government for defending the lawsuit. No legal analysis is allowed to be made.

[Rex]

25. Torture is our national embaressment and shame

that has stained the USA for many countries and will continue to do so as long as we still torture and murder people in the name of national security or war. We are supposed to be better then that, it seems that Obama is against torture (didn't hear any waterboarding issues during his firstterm) but is not willing to let go of (as we all know) obvious evidence of the torture during the 8 years of GWB dictatorship. Out of fear of reprisal is my guess.

[AtomicKitten]

27. The CIA under BushCo destroyed 92 torture tapes years ago.

http://pubrecord.org/torture/230/justice-dept-says-cia-destroyed-92-torture-tapes/

[riderinthestorm]

28. Guantanamo has done so much damage to US credibility.

It's a monstrosity that hangs over the United States for sure but the rage it engenders overseas, even amongst our allies, is pretty fearsome. Obama's lack of action in clearing house on this festering mess is a huge mistake. Continuing to "cover up" what's going on there fools noone.