ACLU: "Comey approved some of the worst abuses committed by the Bush administration"
CONTACT: 212-549-2666, media@aclu.org
WASHINGTON – Below is a statement from Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, on President Obama's reported plan to nominate James B. Comey as the next director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
"While the ACLU does not take official positions on nominations to appointed office, there are many questions regarding Comey's record that deserve careful scrutiny from the Senate Judiciary Committee. As the second-highest ranked Justice Department official under John Ashcroft, Comey approved some of the worst abuses committed by the Bush administration. Specifically, the publicly available evidence indicates Comey signed off on enhanced interrogation techniques that constitute torture, including waterboarding. He also oversaw the indefinite detention without charge or trial of an American citizen picked up in the United States and then held for years in a military brig. Although Comey, despite tremendous pressure from the Bush White House, deserves credit for courageously stopping the reauthorization of a secret National Security Agency program, he reportedly approved programs that struck at the very core of who we all are as Americans.
"It's critical that the Senate ensures that the men and women of the FBI know that they have a leader who will demand adherence to the rule of law and will hold those accountable who do not, wherever he or she may find them."
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-comment-possible-nomination-james-b-comey-fbi-director
= new reply since forum marked as read
Just as they did with CIA reports on WMDs, Bush officials pressured DOJ lawyers to issue torture-authorizing memos.
By Glenn Greenwald
The New York Times was provided 3 extremely important internal Justice Department emails from April, 2005 (.pdf) – all written by then-Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey — which highlight how the Bush administration’s torture techniques became legally authorized by Bush lawyers. As Marcy Wheeler documents, the leak to the NYT was clearly from someone eager to defend Bush officials by suggesting that Comey’s emails prove that all DOJ lawyers — even those opposed to torture on policy grounds — agreed these techniques were legal, and the NYT reporters, Scott Shane and David Johnston, dutifully do the leakers’ bidding by misleadingly depicting the Comey emails as vindication for Bush/Cheney (Headline: ”U.S. Lawyers Agreed on the Legality of Brutal Tactic”; First Paragraph: ”When Justice Department lawyers engaged in a sharp internal debate in 2005 over brutal interrogation techniques, even some who believed that using tough tactics was a serious mistake agreed on a basic point: the methods themselves were legal”).
I defy anyone to read Comey’s 3 emails and walk away with that conclusion. Marcy has detailed many of the reasons the NYT article is so misleading, so I want to focus on what the Comey emails actually demonstrate about what these DOJ torture memos really are. The primary argument against prosecutions for Bush officials who ordered torture is that DOJ lawyers told the White House that these tactics were legal, and White House officials therefore had the right to rely on those legal opinions. The premise is that White House officials inquired in good faith with the DOJ about what they could and could not do under the law, and only ordered those tactics which the DOJ lawyers told them were legal. As these Comey emails prove, that simply is not what happened.
<...>
What’s most ironic about what the NYT did here is that on the very same day this article appears, there is a column from the NYT Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, excoriating the paper for having published a deeply misleading front page story by Elizabeth Bumiller, that claimed that 1 out of 7 Guantanamo detainees returned to “jihad” once they are released. That happened because Bumiller followed the most common method of modern establishment reporting: she mindlessly repeated what her government sources told her to say. As Hoyt put it:
But the article on which he based that statement was seriously flawed and greatly overplayed. It demonstrated again the dangers when editors run with exclusive leaked material in politically charged circumstances and fail to push back skeptically. The lapse is especially unfortunate at The Times, given its history in covering the run-up to the Iraq war.
That is exactly what Shane and Johnston did with these Comey emails. Just as Bumiller did, they included some contrary facts buried deep in the article about Comey’s objections, but the headline and the way the entire article was framed will create the impression — as intended — that there was unanimity among DOJ lawyers regarding the legality of the Bush interrogation program. Other journalists, too slothful to read the Comey emails themselves, will get the message and go forth and repeat it, and it will soon be conventional wisdom that “everyone” at the DOJ agreed these torture techniques were legal. Already this morning, here is George Stephanopolous’ Twitter reaction to the NYT story:
http://www.salon.com/2009/06/07/torture_memos/
This just goes to show how opinions can differ. I never trusted Comey.
Lame. 
I see this has been an exercise in futility.
To put it bluntly, your "shit" is a bit lacking in creativity, which probably explains why you thought the remark was DU'zy material in the first place.
At any rate, have at it. 
whoooosh
Please proceed without me, I'm doing my nails.
I'm sure it's all a big misunderstanding. 
party for nominations instead of throwing in with pro-torture Bushies? 
Watch out Occupy.
Even if you are a Registered Democrat (which he himself is not), to not agree with an O appointment makes you a third party hater that needs to be TS'D. The weird part is, to not be "third party" we must support this REPUBLICAN. how does Sid logic makes sense? Even if he is correct about partisan purity and this site, how does that also include supporting Republicans with a hard on for torture?
He has gone around insulting, attacking, and ridiculing anyone that is not up to his loyalist expectations for years and word has it he is completely tombstone immune, which appears to be the case.
He is a DU pet of some sort with immunity to tell us how to be American Democrats. I don't understand it either.
It took little effort to get him to put me on ignore. Try it. It will make your DU experience MUCH more pleasant. 
'Course then the sycophants come in but they're easily handled.
Sid
and he likes to sing along, and he likes to shoot his guns...
but he don't know what it means....
Democratic administration, considerable blow-back might be a necessary part of the price to be paid for that privilege.
Chalk up another one for Team Blue.
AND, we got long term Republican Lincoln Chaffe yesterday!!!
He still believes everything he believed before,
but , for some reason, NOW feels right at home in the New Democrat Centrist Party!!!!
Nonnie...nonnie... hey Hey.
The Republican Party is DEAD!!!!
CENTRISM!!...because it is so damned EASY!
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
and get to insult those who DO!!!
AND SHAME ON DUers FOR PIMPING HIM SOLELY BECAUSE OBAMA THINKS HE IS A-OK 
And evidently Comey urgently advised him not to, even though Gonzo was under heavy pressure from the White House. From an April 28, 2005, Comey e-mail to a Chuck Rosenburg describing a phone call from a Ted Ullyot about an upcoming WH meeting between Gonzo, Rice, Dumya and Darth regarding "interrogations," later published in NYT:
http://static1.firedoglake.com/28/files//2009/06/050427-comey-emails-compressed.pdf
There's more at the link but regarding this particular episode it seems Cheney in particular was muscling the DOJ to sign off on a fig leaf, Gonzo buckled, and Comey explicitly advised him not to. At least that's how it looks to me. Who knows what ACLU's beef is today. It would help if they identified their "publicly available evidence," but they don't:
Specifically, the publicly available evidence indicates Comey signed off on enhanced interrogation techniques that constitute torture, including waterboarding. He also oversaw the indefinite detention without charge or trial of an American citizen picked up in the United States and then held for years in a military brig.
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-comment-possible-nomination-james-b-comey-fbi-director
Bottom line: the ACLU memo looks a little fishy. Comey and a Patrick Philbin apparently did NOT approve the techniques and also didn't attend the meeting where Gonzo gave the green light.
Bloomberg Business report thought that was surprising. 
So...I'm worried that the Repugs like her, too...because they are in favor of the policies she will advocate at Commerce. And, she must have a big agenda if she's giving up her Board Memberships and some of her Trust Fund accounts activities.
With Comey...I sort of go along with H20man's opinion. He's not the best, but not the worst and he's about what we could expect.
Jason Furman and Penny Pritzger...are pretty much indefensible. Except that one is a "President Maker" and the other a DC insider who served Clinton, Kerry and even Wes Clark in his campaign. He's connected ...a "Free Trader Advocate" and he's got his own trust fund from his Wealthy Family. He thinks Wall Mart is Progressive...and thinks Universal Health Care is allowing more insurance companies into the market for competition to get the poor care.
It's all bad and discouraging to me. But, I imagine that there will be many here who feel these choices are excellent...because this President is doing it and not Bush or Romney...
BUSH ADMINISTRATION = BAD
