10 ms·

US Attorney General Holder: We Won't Torture or Kill Snowden

35 points by tippytop 13y ago

detcader 13y ago
Just like how Bradley Manning was treated totally legally and torture-free http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/07/26/eric-holder-well-maybe-just-a-little-forced-nudity-and-solitary-confinement/ http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/07/26/eric-holder-well-maybe-...
zw123456 13y ago
Golly, how magnanimous of you, it is almost as if you are a human.
- noonespecial 13y ago
  No, but he plays one on TV.
RexRollman 13y ago
Considering that the US Government no longer considers things like waterboarding and sleep depravation to be torture, I take little comfort in Holder's statements.
- baddox 13y ago
  Also because the US government lies, even using its own definitions of terms.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Untrue. One of the first acts of the current administration was to ban waterboarding and other interrogation methods that are widely considered to be torture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#Obama_administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#Obama_administra... The historical revisionism in this thread is nonsensical, I think you all know perfectly well that there's a sharp partisan divide on this issue.
  - detcader 13y ago
    Is there? http://www.salon.com/2007/12/09/democrats_9/ http://www.salon.com/2007/12/09/democrats_9/ And solitary confinement is still fine, apparently. If people were waterboarded again, would anyone be punished? Maybe the private contractor doing it would be fined a portion of their annual profits. Maybe someone might step down -- down right into a private industry position or speaking tour. Seemingly every year since 2007 up to 2012, more and more people were pardoned for torturing. What's different in 2013?
    - cabalamat 13y ago
      > If people were waterboarded again, would anyone be punished? Yes -- the whistleblower who said people were being waterboarded.
      - lostlogin 13y ago
        Untrue, the US executed the Japanese who tortured US servicemen with water boarding in WWII. Just make sure you're certain what side you're on before doing it, and you'll be fine. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      What's different is that prior to 2009, the Bush administration considered such 'enhanced interrogation' methods to be legal, and instructed intelligence agents accordingly. People have been pardoned for activities that they were assured were legal and ordered to carry out - a sticky moral situation to be sure, but courts decide issues of law rather than morality. Since the change in 2009, nobody can say they thought things like waterboarding were legal, and if some field agent were to carry it out s/he would have no defense available in law. I don't want to turn this intoa Republican/Democrat political issue, but to pretend the two administrations are the same on this issue is just not credible and does not make for a constructive discussion. You can find plenty to criticize about the incumbent administration without needing to invent more.
  - lostlogin 13y ago
jlgaddis 13y ago
Did anyone check to see if he had his fingers crossed behind his back when he said it?
jlgaddis 13y ago
It would be really nice to know how they legally interpret "torture" and "kill" since so many other common English words often mean completely different things to the U.S. Government.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- recusancy 13y ago
  http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInterrogations/ http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInt...
cupcake-unicorn 13y ago
Don't they realize how weird it is for them to have to be spelling it out like this? There's a bigger problem when it's just assumed by everyone the government is going to do this...
- baddox 13y ago
  It's not that weird, since they are known to torture whistleblowers.
  - cupcake-unicorn 13y ago
    Well, that's what makes it so weird, honestly. By making the statement, they're in a way admitting that yes, that's what they're known for, otherwise it wouldn't have to be clarified. You'd think that if they could keep Prism under wraps for so long, that they'd have resources to cover up the torturing stuff!
- meepmorp 13y ago
  Many countries refuse to extradite people if they face the death penalty or other extreme punishments. Given that the US has the death penalty at the federal level, an assurance that Snowden won't potentially die for the leaking is a plausibly necessary gesture.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
jluxenberg 13y ago
Snowden is charged [1] with: * 18 USC 641 - Theft of government property * 18 USC 793(d) - Unauthorized communication of national defense information * 18 USC 798(a)(3) - Willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person None carry the death penalty. All carry a prison sentence of "not more than ten years." [1] http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/us-vs-edward-j-snowden-criminal-complaint/496/ http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/us-vs-edwar... [EDIT formatting]
- cheald 13y ago
  Of course, we're talking about a government that is in this predicament precisely because they just ignore the law when convenient.
  - meepmorp 13y ago
    > Of course, we're talking about a government that is in this predicament precisely because they just ignore the law when convenient. No. The NSA surveillance is, at least putatively, permitted by the current laws in the US. You can argue about the appropriateness of the laws, even their constitutionality, but the NSA (and larger federal government) is almost certainly not ignoring the law in this case.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
      - meepmorp 13y ago
        > constitutionality = legality Show me where any of this has been ruled unconstitutional. I'm not making a claim about morality, nor about the ultimate acceptability of the NSA's surveillance program, nor the laws and,and court decisina that permit it - I'm saying that it is legal (in that it is allowed by law) and that laws are assumed to be constitutional unless a court rules otherwise.
finkin1 13y ago
Unfortunately, there is basically no trust left in the US Government. They've used it all up. Why would Snowden believe proven-to-be pathological liars? The US Government will put you in solitary confinement for years and waterboard you and it's not considered 'torture.'
charonn0 13y ago
I wonder if this constitutes the administration's promised response to the Snowden pardon petition[1] [1]: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vGYD https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snow...
skimmas 13y ago
" He could even get a lawyer. "
- pyrocat 13y ago
  To be fair, that was a quote from the guy who wrote the commentary, not from Holder.
mixmax 13y ago
If the general attorney has to step up to the podium and assure an American public that a whistleblower won't be killed or tortured you've got a country in dire straits. Especially since it seems that not all Americans believe him.
- bparsons 13y ago
  His statement said nothing about using "enhanced interrogation methods" against Snowden. By their own legal definition, the US government "tortures" no one. Water boarding, sensory deprivation, psychological torture, stress positions and starvation are not considered torture by the administration.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > Water boarding, sensory deprivation, psychological torture, stress positions and starvation are not considered torture by the administration. Really? That's news to me. Can you point me to the AG memo or E.O. clarifying that waterboarding and stress positions are now again not considered torture?
    - VladRussian2 13y ago
      c'mon, it is minutiae details. Human body and mind allow for so much ways to make live less pleasant and more painful, and without hematoma ... While we discuss here specifics of previous version, i'm sure the professionals have already took their certifications tests in "enhanced interrogation techniques v2.0" The fact that nobody was prosecuted for performing and authorizing torture sends very clear message.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - mpyne 13y ago
        > c'mon, it is minutiae details It's not just "details". Distortion and misleading details are attributes I'd always pinned on 'the others', but I won't accept it from here just because we both disagree with torture.
cheald 13y ago
Holder pretty much has to say this (because seriously, what is he going to say? "Go ahead and give him asylum, we'd just torture and execute him if we got him back."), but it's abundantly clear what the US Govt thinks of Snowden and his Constitutional rights (which, mind you, supersede any other part of the USC) [1][2]. This is an administration that has killed US citizens without due process, tortured prisoners, and deeply extended the grasp of the police state. We're supposed to trust that they'll just be nice guys and do the right and legal thing now? [1] http://www.tubechop.com/watch/1318893 http://www.tubechop.com/watch/1318893 [2] http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130714/00393923792/white-house-believes-ed-snowden-shouldnt-have-any-free-speech-rights-attacks-russia-letting-him-speak.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130714/00393923792/white-...
GigabyteCoin 13y ago
What a ridiculous statement for a government official to make in a country that has sentences determined by a democratic court system. How can Holder know what the punishment will be on top of what the jury will decide?
- mpyne 13y ago
  Because there is a cap on what punishments are allowed, whether the jury likes it or not? All Holder has to do is prevent his US Attorney from issuing charges where death penalty is an option and that part is dealt with. Torture is also not permissible anyways so it's kind of redundant having to mention it. If the police do torture Snowden at least one of the many judged in the district+appellant review chain will throw the case out completely and he's a free man (for example, see Ellsberg who had his charges thrown out for much much less than torture).
  - pyrocat 13y ago
    Or more realistically, someone from the justice department will write a memo saying that whatever torture he underwent wasn't torture. Or they'd secretly torture him overseas, like they've done many times in the past, and Holder's statement would still be technically true.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      > Or more realistically, someone from the justice department will write a memo saying that whatever torture he underwent wasn't torture I don't think 'ex post facto' works like that, but then IANAL. Certainly it's hard to hold his trial here in America while he's being tortured overseas, and it's fairly tinfoily anyways; why didn't they send Thomas Drake overseas to torture him? Or Ellsberg today? Surely they could think up something to charge him with, if all they needed was some DoJ lackey to write a memo...
      - pyrocat 13y ago
        Too much publicity. And re: torture and memos defining torture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#Regarding_torture_of_detainees http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#Regarding_torture_of_d...
tareqak 13y ago
BBC version of the news available here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23468459 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23468459. Link to actual letter: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/26_07_13_attorney_general_letter_to_russian_justice_minister.pdf http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/26_07_13_attorney... Edit: fixed typo
dictum 13y ago
>Wyden then asked Director Clapper, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" He responded, "No, sir." Wyden asked "It does not?" and Clapper said "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertantly perhaps collect, but not wittingly." >On July 1, 2013, Clapper issued an apology, saying that "My response was clearly erroneous – for which I apologize."
- nathan_long 13y ago
  A contemptible apology. "Erroneous" strongly implies a mistake, and thereby adds another lie to the lie he's "apologizing" for.
  - tzs 13y ago
    What else was Clapper supposed to say to Wyden's question? If he answered truthfully, he'd illegally reveal classified information. If he said that he could not answer without revealing classified information, he'd effectively reveal classified information. Wyden knew all this and asked the question anyway, most likely to try to get Clapper to reveal classified information.
    - nathan_long 13y ago
      You're saying he was justified in lying. I disagree, but let's leave that aside. He could have said "I lied, but I had to for national security reasons. I don't apologize. The question was inappropriate and Wyden should apologize for asking." He could have said "I lied, and I shouldn't have. I apologize." (A resignation would be nice.) But he's quoted as saying "My response was clearly erroneous – for which I apologize." To me, this sounds like "I thought I was telling the truth but later learned that my statements were incorrect. I apologize." Which is itself either 1) an admission of incompetence or 2) an additional lie. #2 is much more likely. Do you see why I called this "apology" contemptible?
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        I presume he could also have refused to answer.
michaelrhansen 13y ago
Of course he won't. He will be tortured at Gitmo.
andrewflnr 13y ago
Even if we believed him, it doesn't matter. Sending him to prison forever is still unacceptable. Ask me again when you're ready to give him a full pardon.
appleflaxen 13y ago
This is the face of Fascism in America.

35 points by tippytop 13y ago

Just like how Bradley Manning was treated totally legally and torture-free http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/07/26/eric-holder-well-maybe-just-a-little-forced-nudity-and-solitary-confinement/ http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/07/26/eric-holder-well-maybe-...

zw123456 13y ago

Golly, how magnanimous of you, it is almost as if you are a human.

noonespecial 13y ago
No, but he plays one on TV.

RexRollman 13y ago

Considering that the US Government no longer considers things like waterboarding and sleep depravation to be torture, I take little comfort in Holder's statements.

baddox 13y ago
Also because the US government lies, even using its own definitions of terms.
anigbrowl 13y ago
Untrue. One of the first acts of the current administration was to ban waterboarding and other interrogation methods that are widely considered to be torture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#Obama_administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#Obama_administra... The historical revisionism in this thread is nonsensical, I think you all know perfectly well that there's a sharp partisan divide on this issue.
- detcader 13y ago
  Is there? http://www.salon.com/2007/12/09/democrats_9/ http://www.salon.com/2007/12/09/democrats_9/ And solitary confinement is still fine, apparently. If people were waterboarded again, would anyone be punished? Maybe the private contractor doing it would be fined a portion of their annual profits. Maybe someone might step down -- down right into a private industry position or speaking tour. Seemingly every year since 2007 up to 2012, more and more people were pardoned for torturing. What's different in 2013?
  - cabalamat 13y ago
    > If people were waterboarded again, would anyone be punished? Yes -- the whistleblower who said people were being waterboarded.
    - lostlogin 13y ago
      Untrue, the US executed the Japanese who tortured US servicemen with water boarding in WWII. Just make sure you're certain what side you're on before doing it, and you'll be fine. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    What's different is that prior to 2009, the Bush administration considered such 'enhanced interrogation' methods to be legal, and instructed intelligence agents accordingly. People have been pardoned for activities that they were assured were legal and ordered to carry out - a sticky moral situation to be sure, but courts decide issues of law rather than morality. Since the change in 2009, nobody can say they thought things like waterboarding were legal, and if some field agent were to carry it out s/he would have no defense available in law. I don't want to turn this intoa Republican/Democrat political issue, but to pretend the two administrations are the same on this issue is just not credible and does not make for a constructive discussion. You can find plenty to criticize about the incumbent administration without needing to invent more.
- lostlogin 13y ago

jlgaddis 13y ago

Did anyone check to see if he had his fingers crossed behind his back when he said it?

jlgaddis 13y ago

It would be really nice to know how they legally interpret "torture" and "kill" since so many other common English words often mean completely different things to the U.S. Government.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
recusancy 13y ago
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInterrogations/ http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInt...

cupcake-unicorn 13y ago

Don't they realize how weird it is for them to have to be spelling it out like this? There's a bigger problem when it's just assumed by everyone the government is going to do this...

baddox 13y ago
It's not that weird, since they are known to torture whistleblowers.
- cupcake-unicorn 13y ago
  Well, that's what makes it so weird, honestly. By making the statement, they're in a way admitting that yes, that's what they're known for, otherwise it wouldn't have to be clarified. You'd think that if they could keep Prism under wraps for so long, that they'd have resources to cover up the torturing stuff!
meepmorp 13y ago
Many countries refuse to extradite people if they face the death penalty or other extreme punishments. Given that the US has the death penalty at the federal level, an assurance that Snowden won't potentially die for the leaking is a plausibly necessary gesture.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

jluxenberg 13y ago

Snowden is charged [1] with: * 18 USC 641 - Theft of government property * 18 USC 793(d) - Unauthorized communication of national defense information * 18 USC 798(a)(3) - Willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person None carry the death penalty. All carry a prison sentence of "not more than ten years." [1] http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/us-vs-edward-j-snowden-criminal-complaint/496/ http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/us-vs-edwar... [EDIT formatting]

cheald 13y ago
Of course, we're talking about a government that is in this predicament precisely because they just ignore the law when convenient.
- meepmorp 13y ago
  > Of course, we're talking about a government that is in this predicament precisely because they just ignore the law when convenient. No. The NSA surveillance is, at least putatively, permitted by the current laws in the US. You can argue about the appropriateness of the laws, even their constitutionality, but the NSA (and larger federal government) is almost certainly not ignoring the law in this case.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - meepmorp 13y ago
      > constitutionality = legality Show me where any of this has been ruled unconstitutional. I'm not making a claim about morality, nor about the ultimate acceptability of the NSA's surveillance program, nor the laws and,and court decisina that permit it - I'm saying that it is legal (in that it is allowed by law) and that laws are assumed to be constitutional unless a court rules otherwise.

finkin1 13y ago

Unfortunately, there is basically no trust left in the US Government. They've used it all up. Why would Snowden believe proven-to-be pathological liars? The US Government will put you in solitary confinement for years and waterboard you and it's not considered 'torture.'

charonn0 13y ago

I wonder if this constitutes the administration's promised response to the Snowden pardon petition[1] [1]: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vGYD https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snow...

skimmas 13y ago

" He could even get a lawyer. "

pyrocat 13y ago
To be fair, that was a quote from the guy who wrote the commentary, not from Holder.

mixmax 13y ago

If the general attorney has to step up to the podium and assure an American public that a whistleblower won't be killed or tortured you've got a country in dire straits. Especially since it seems that not all Americans believe him.

bparsons 13y ago
His statement said nothing about using "enhanced interrogation methods" against Snowden. By their own legal definition, the US government "tortures" no one. Water boarding, sensory deprivation, psychological torture, stress positions and starvation are not considered torture by the administration.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > Water boarding, sensory deprivation, psychological torture, stress positions and starvation are not considered torture by the administration. Really? That's news to me. Can you point me to the AG memo or E.O. clarifying that waterboarding and stress positions are now again not considered torture?
  - VladRussian2 13y ago
    c'mon, it is minutiae details. Human body and mind allow for so much ways to make live less pleasant and more painful, and without hematoma ... While we discuss here specifics of previous version, i'm sure the professionals have already took their certifications tests in "enhanced interrogation techniques v2.0" The fact that nobody was prosecuted for performing and authorizing torture sends very clear message.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - mpyne 13y ago
      > c'mon, it is minutiae details It's not just "details". Distortion and misleading details are attributes I'd always pinned on 'the others', but I won't accept it from here just because we both disagree with torture.

cheald 13y ago

Holder pretty much has to say this (because seriously, what is he going to say? "Go ahead and give him asylum, we'd just torture and execute him if we got him back."), but it's abundantly clear what the US Govt thinks of Snowden and his Constitutional rights (which, mind you, supersede any other part of the USC) [1][2]. This is an administration that has killed US citizens without due process, tortured prisoners, and deeply extended the grasp of the police state. We're supposed to trust that they'll just be nice guys and do the right and legal thing now? [1] http://www.tubechop.com/watch/1318893 http://www.tubechop.com/watch/1318893 [2] http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130714/00393923792/white-house-believes-ed-snowden-shouldnt-have-any-free-speech-rights-attacks-russia-letting-him-speak.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130714/00393923792/white-...

GigabyteCoin 13y ago

What a ridiculous statement for a government official to make in a country that has sentences determined by a democratic court system. How can Holder know what the punishment will be on top of what the jury will decide?

mpyne 13y ago
Because there is a cap on what punishments are allowed, whether the jury likes it or not? All Holder has to do is prevent his US Attorney from issuing charges where death penalty is an option and that part is dealt with. Torture is also not permissible anyways so it's kind of redundant having to mention it. If the police do torture Snowden at least one of the many judged in the district+appellant review chain will throw the case out completely and he's a free man (for example, see Ellsberg who had his charges thrown out for much much less than torture).
- pyrocat 13y ago
  Or more realistically, someone from the justice department will write a memo saying that whatever torture he underwent wasn't torture. Or they'd secretly torture him overseas, like they've done many times in the past, and Holder's statement would still be technically true.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > Or more realistically, someone from the justice department will write a memo saying that whatever torture he underwent wasn't torture I don't think 'ex post facto' works like that, but then IANAL. Certainly it's hard to hold his trial here in America while he's being tortured overseas, and it's fairly tinfoily anyways; why didn't they send Thomas Drake overseas to torture him? Or Ellsberg today? Surely they could think up something to charge him with, if all they needed was some DoJ lackey to write a memo...
    - pyrocat 13y ago
      Too much publicity. And re: torture and memos defining torture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#Regarding_torture_of_detainees http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#Regarding_torture_of_d...

tareqak 13y ago

BBC version of the news available here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23468459 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23468459. Link to actual letter: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/26_07_13_attorney_general_letter_to_russian_justice_minister.pdf http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/26_07_13_attorney... Edit: fixed typo

dictum 13y ago

>Wyden then asked Director Clapper, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" He responded, "No, sir." Wyden asked "It does not?" and Clapper said "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertantly perhaps collect, but not wittingly." >On July 1, 2013, Clapper issued an apology, saying that "My response was clearly erroneous – for which I apologize."

nathan_long 13y ago
A contemptible apology. "Erroneous" strongly implies a mistake, and thereby adds another lie to the lie he's "apologizing" for.
- tzs 13y ago
  What else was Clapper supposed to say to Wyden's question? If he answered truthfully, he'd illegally reveal classified information. If he said that he could not answer without revealing classified information, he'd effectively reveal classified information. Wyden knew all this and asked the question anyway, most likely to try to get Clapper to reveal classified information.
  - nathan_long 13y ago
    You're saying he was justified in lying. I disagree, but let's leave that aside. He could have said "I lied, but I had to for national security reasons. I don't apologize. The question was inappropriate and Wyden should apologize for asking." He could have said "I lied, and I shouldn't have. I apologize." (A resignation would be nice.) But he's quoted as saying "My response was clearly erroneous – for which I apologize." To me, this sounds like "I thought I was telling the truth but later learned that my statements were incorrect. I apologize." Which is itself either 1) an admission of incompetence or 2) an additional lie. #2 is much more likely. Do you see why I called this "apology" contemptible?
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      I presume he could also have refused to answer.

michaelrhansen 13y ago

Of course he won't. He will be tortured at Gitmo.

andrewflnr 13y ago

Even if we believed him, it doesn't matter. Sending him to prison forever is still unacceptable. Ask me again when you're ready to give him a full pardon.

appleflaxen 13y ago

This is the face of Fascism in America.