Eric Holder: the more things change . . .

As is often the case, it looks as if Glenn Greenwald has it nailed. Obama AG Eric Holder is appointing a special prosecutor to look into interrogation excesses by the CIA, but the initial impression is that this will be another Abu Ghraib. They'll nail a few lower-level interrogators and leave upper-level officials who argued for torture, pleaded for torture, justified torture in legal briefs that read like what a Mafia lawyer would prepare for a Don who wanted to stay out of jail while committing endless crimes.

The most troubling thing about Holder's approach is that it seems to accept the "torture memos" done by the DOJ -- John Yoo, Jay Bybee, et. al. -- as the new standard for what is or isn't torture. CIA interrogators who stayed within the latitudinarian lines will apparently be protected from prosecution if they believed the DOJ memos defined what was legal and stayed within their guidelines. Only those who went beyond -- there are stories of threatening the death of a family, threatening with a gun and power drill, watching one's mother being raped -- would seem to face prosecution.

But the memos are outrageous, authorizing techniques that are clearly beyond the pale, some clearly torture -- and all ineffective. You know if there had been real attacks thwarted or bad guys captured through "enhanced interrogation," the stories would have been leaked aggressively. But none of the tales told by torture advocates have held up.

Theoretically, of course, a special prosecutor could go after the lawyers who wrote the memos justifying torture with tortured reasoning, or even Cheney or Bush. But one doubts it. Higher-ups are immune, a few lower-echelon folks get nailed to create the illusion of accuntability.

Torture: a chance to learn

Here is the Register's editorial today on the torture memos. The emphasis here is on calling for a release of all the information surrounding torture, including whatever evidence, if any, exists for torture having been efficacious as a way to acquire information. Dick Cheney's call for the release of such information, I suspect, is a bit of bravado, and his claim that he had asked for such release earlier is already suspect. How sad that he now feels he must spend the rest of his life defending an indefensible decision to put together a torture program -- yes, it was a program orchestrated from the top, not an occasional excess by those in the field. I suspect a full examination would reveal almost nothing that could not have been acquired without torture. But bring it out and bring it on!

The torture memos -- glad we know, but now what?

I still haven't read the four "torture" memos President Obama released on Thursday. Maybe tomorrow. Maybe even later tonight, though it's getting later and they don't strike me as cheeful bvedtime reading. Meantime, here's part of the post I did for the Register's Orange Punch blog, which includes links to the memos themselves if you're interested in downloading theem, and to quite a few comments from people who have read them:

The ACLU’s news release. A 8/8/02 memo from Jay Bybee (18 pp, pdf.). A 5/10/05 memo from Steven Bradbury (46 pp. pdf.). Another 5/10/05 memo from Steven Bradbury (20 pp, pdf.). A 5/30/05 memo from Steven Bradbury (40 pp., pdf.).

I’m not sure what to think about Obama/Holder’s announcement that there would be no further investigation/prosecution of CIA people who acted in good faith in reliance on the legal advice contained in these memos. You could argue that it’s like the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commissions — better to get the truth out than to worry about prosecution. Or you could argue that failure to prosecute is justice denied. I can see a case either way.

I understand that some of this stuff is pretty graphic. Comments from people I generally respect here, here, here, and here. And from some I don’t respect so much here and here and here.