Torture Team by Philippe Sands
Rumsfeld’s Memo and the Betrayal of American Values
I have read, literally, several thousand books so far in my life. This book may be the most important and significant book of them all.
Executive Summary: This book is a road map for any prosecutor or jurist who wants to charge any one of more than a dozen members and/or ex-members of the Bush administration with war crimes.
The majority of people the author writes about are lawyers or members of the bar, in the case of a judge. Do not make the mistake of thinking these people are dumb or stupid. It takes a reasonable amount of smarts just to get into law school and an incredible amount of work and determination to graduate as a Juris Doctorate followed by time and money to prepare for and pass the bar exam.
Having said that, I am groping for an understanding of how so many lawyers and generals followed Bush over the cliff.
Heros
The author, Mr. Philippe Sands, is a barrister in Great Britain. Great Britain has two levels of lawyers. This is the Wikipedia definition:
A barrister is a lawyer found in many common law jurisdictions which employ a split profession (as opposed to a fused profession) in relation to legal representation. In split professions, the other type of lawyer is the solicitor. Solicitors have more direct contact with the clients, whereas barristers often only become involved in a case once advocacy before a court is needed by the client. Barristers are also engaged by solicitors to provide specialist advice on points of law.
Alberto Mora, General Counsel, U. S. Navy – Only after Mr. Mora’s threat to go ‘public’ did William J. Haynes II, General Counsel, Department of Defense, tell Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld that some of the authorized actions might be torture.
Marion “Spike” Bowman, Deputy General Counsel, National Security Law Branch, FBI
FBI agents at Guantanamo Bay
Mike Gelles, Chief Psychologist, Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS)
Thomas Romig, Major General, Judge Advocate General, U. S. Army
Villains
William J. Haynes II, General Counsel, Department of Defense
David Addington, General Counsel to the Vice President of the United States
Alberto Gonzales, Counsel to POTUS
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Doug Feith (pronounced: Fife), Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
Jay Bybee, Assistant Attorney General
John Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Geoffrey Miller, Major General, CG of JTF-GTMO
The story revolves around one central issue: are lawyers bound to follow the law when giving advice to their clients or can they tailor their advice to fit the client’s policy? This issue will not be adjudicated in the United States nor will it be decided soon. But, one day, one of these folks will be arrested in a foreign country on a war crimes charge and held for trial.
Known by various names (The Judges Trial, Altstotter and The Justice Trial), the formal name was Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals. It is the only international precedent for trying lawyers for giving advice to fit the policy.
Quoting Sands when he is presenting his findings to a European Jurist and a European Prosecutor:
She (the Jurist) had a copy of her country’s criminal code. She took me to the relevant provision and read it out loud. “It is quite clear,” she said, “that the lawyer who gives such legal advice is not treated as an accomplice, it is as though he is the author of the act.” So in theory he could be criminally responsible under your country’s application of Geneva or the Torture Convention, I inquired. I explained that under English law the fact that a criminal statute was silent on accomplices or accessories was not likely to be relevant, since that kind of responsibility would be read into the law. “Not in theory,” she responded, “but in reality, because the lawyer has the same responsibility as the interrogator.” The Judge agreed. The lawyer had a responsibility — the same responsibility — because he acted with the decision maker. This was long established principle, it went back to Roman law.
The above ‘villainous’ lawyers are all political appointees. It is critical to know William Haynes and David Addington purposely kept the military lawyers out of the loop because “they aren’t reliable.”
Again, quoting Sands:
These important voices (military lawyers) were silent in October and November 2002, as the eighteen (torture) techniques were being considered. They were silent because they had no idea what Rumsfeld and Haynes were doing; they had no idea about the eighteen techniques. “They just cut the services out,” Romig told me. Someone overheard Addington say ‘Don’t bring the TJAGs into the process, they aren’t reliable.’” Romig first heard of the eighteen techniques when they were in a meeting with Jim Haynes and Alberto Mora raised it. “We weren’t aware of it,” he said, “There was shock in the room.” Now the military lawyers raised real and serious concerns that international crimes might have been committed.
The author lays out his case in readable language for the average, reasonably well educated reader. This is not a legal case book. If your local library does not have it, ask them to purchase a copy.
If Abu Gharab was an embarrassment, then Gitmo (Guantanamo Bay) is a stain on the soul of the United States of America and the Constitution.
Tags: Chief
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.