This Saturday, a time bomb will start ticking. The eight-year statute-of-limitations period applicable to the Federal Torture Statute will soon expire. Then, for time immemorial, it will be official: If you torture or conspire to torture in the name of the United States of America, no consequences will follow. We will have officially sanctioned torture.
Why this Saturday? On January 9, 2002, a memo not as well known as the so-called "torture memos" was completed by John Yoo and Robert Delahunty. Addressed to Defense Department General Counsel William Haynes II, and titled "Application of Laws and Treaties to al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees," it is one scary memo. It may be the first evidence of our national policy of torture, what Major General Antonio Taguba, the man selected by the Pentagon to report on Abu Ghraib, called "a systematic regime of torture." The John Yoo and Jay Bybee memos that followed in August of 2002, with their it's-not-torture-until-organ-failure-occurs, have gotten much more publicity. But the Jan. 9 memo, written in much less inflammatory legalese, was the memo that may well have given the green light for torture. This is where the conspiracy to torture may have begun. Here's why.
Minnesota's foremost proponent of torture, Robert Delahunty may get off the hook. The University of Saint Thomas Law School professor may get off the hook because his collaborator on the infamous torture memo, John Yoo, may get off the hook as well. This memo was critical in the Bush Administration's rationalization that the Geneva conventions against torture didn't apply to people capture in the War on Terror.
The Holder Justice Department has filed a sweeping amicus brief in the Padilla v. Yoo case before the Ninth Circuit, seeking to make absolute the immunity granted Justice Department lawyers who counsel torture, disappearings, and other crimes against humanity. The case was brought by Jose Padilla, who claims that he was tortured as the direct result of memoranda written by Yoo, now a law professor at Berkeley. At this stage, the case does not address the factual basis of Padilla's claims, but documents that have been declassified by the Department of Justice make it clear that the charges have a firm basis in fact. Here's the portion of the opinion authored by a lifelong Republican, Bush-appointed judge that the Justice Department found so objectionable:
"Like any other government official, government lawyers are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their conduct...."
The Holder Justice Department insists that they are absolutely not responsible, and that they are free to act according to a far lower standard of conduct than that which governs Americans generally. Indeed, this has emerged as a sort of ignoble mantra for the Justice Department, uniting both the Bush and Obama administrations.
(Harper's)
This is yet another instance of where Hope and Change meet the same ol' same old. Keith Olbermann discussed this on Countdown tonight with Jonathan Turley.
This was my comment following Dr. Miles' MinnPost article:
University of St. Thomas School of Law Dean Thomas Mengler has inexplicably and repeatedly insisted in his defense of Professor Delahunty that he (Delahunty) only wrote one of the legal memos drafted by the Office of Legal Counsel. How can the Dean not know of Delahunty's much greater involvement in writing these other cornerstone memos? And how can the Dean not know that other government officials (i.e. State Dept. lawyers, FBI and military officials) vigorously opposed Delahunty's legal opinions supporting torture? The FBI even opened a "war crimes file" on the abuses agents witnessed as a result of Yoo-Delahunty's legal reasoning that the Geneva Conventions did not apply.
The Dean also attempts to distance Delahunty from the later, more explicit "torture memos" authored by Yoo and Bybee, but the St. Thomas "Distinguished Chair" Michael Stokes Paulsen (who is Delahunty's mentor and who St. Thomas hired for some reason at about the same time as Delahunty) does just the opposite in his defense of the authors of the "torture memos". Paulsen has written and testified in May of this year about "The Lawfulness of the Interrogation Memos" by relying on Delahunty's mistaken notion that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to Bush's "war on terror". Unless I'm not reading his opinion correctly, Paulsen seems to be defending ALL of the later more explicit torture memos by relying on the initial Yoo-Delahunty faulty reasoning.
What's most disconcerting is that these professors currently teach constitutional law and ethics at St. Thomas. The hypocrisy is breathtaking when Dean Mengler welcomes students to the St. Thomas Law School by boasting that "we have a reputation as an academically excellent law school firmly ground in our Catholic intellectual and social tradition. Our unique mission of 'integrating faith and reason in the search for truth through a focus on morality and social justice' is the foundation on which we build a community that emphasizes professional excellence and servant leadership."
Maybe I'm missing some key legal artifice, but I would challenge St. Thomas Dean Mengler, Associate Professor Robert Delahunty and "Distinguished Chair" Michael Stokes Paulsen to explain how their support of the torture memos squares with "a focus on morality and social justice".
Has Associate Professor Delahunty already gained tenure at the UST Law School? Does anyone else find it odd that a law professor would not accept to debate this huge national issue, an issue that the professor had first hand, personal involvement with? When I went to law school, that's all the law professors did was debate! (And I should add that the law professors I know tend to be very good at it since they practice so much.) So I think the silence of Delahunty and the Dean of the St. Thomas law school is just very telling.
The ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), and the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), were among nine GOP senators who sent a letter last week to Holder urging him to back off from the idea of appointing the special prosecutor.(TheHill.com)
Way to go, guys!!! Ehrlichman, Haldeman, G. Gordon and the boys would have loved to have you in the senate, way back when!!!
Now, here's the exchange that "highlights" the GOP's position that when they break laws, laws don't matter:
FLOYD: That pressure has been on to investigate what went on in these interrogations since long before Eric Holder had this job. And yes, it is correct that Obama has said from the beginning that he wants to look forward.
O'REILLY: Yeah, and he's smart to do that. Right.
FLOYD: And he doesn't want to look back.
O'REILLY: Right.
FLOYD: And that's a political choice. And it's probably a wise strategy, but Eric Holder is not in a political job.
O'REILLY: Yeah, but he can get fired.
FLOYD: That's right, he can, but you can't make decisions as attorney general because you're afraid of getting fired.
O'REILLY: But how many attorney generals did Nixon fire? He fired one a week.
O
M
G.
Not only is Billo The Clown claiming that "prosecutorial discretion" should preclude Attorney General Holder from investigating torture crimes, Billo The Clown is using Nixon - NIXON - as a reason why Attorney General Holder shouldn't be investigating crimes of torure!!!
Just as new details emerged on Monday, August 24 of CIA interrogators' abuse of prisoners involving mock executions, threatening prisoners with power drills, and choking them to the point of passing out, Associate Law Professor Robert Delahunty quietly resumed teaching fall classes on constitutional law at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis. Delahunty along with co-author John Yoo at the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) laid the cornerstone legal memo that gave the green light to "go to the dark side" as Dick Cheney was urging. The 2004 CIA Inspector General report is heavily redacted but it's apparently so disturbing that it led Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on this very same day to appoint a prosecutor-the same one looking at the destruction of the CIA torture tapes-to review the abuses, setting the stage for a probe that could lead to criminal charges of CIA personnel.
It seems the supreme irony to me that we prosecute the people protesting at the Republican National convention for planning a parade, for simply being in the wrong place during a crowd arrest or for dancing in the street. At the same time, we encourage St Thomas Law Professor Robert Delahunty, to teach our college students that the end justifies the means. This information comes from Robert Delahunty's own students speaking to peace advocates at St Thomas yesterday. Robert Delahunty wrote the bogus legal justification for torture. If words matter, then Delahunty is very responsible for outrageous acts of torture. So if "ends justify means" then why are we prosecuting all of the Republican National convention protesters? Maybe the problem was that they just broke minor traffic laws and damaged property instead of torturing people. Because according to law taught by our professors at our local St Thomas college, torture is justified and legal and the end justifies the means!
In connection with Monday's rally (click here) at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis to "Deter Delahunty", I need to assign some reading of the excellent and relevant academic discussion in today's NY Times: "Torture and Academic Freedom". I would highly recommend that everyone, including lawyers and non-lawyers, all opponents and proponents of torture, rally participants and the Dean and faculty of the University of St. Thomas read these five carefully considered and written academic opinions. The legal opinions actually show, that although there are nuances of disagreement on some points, there is a great deal of consensus that John Yoo's (and his early memo co-author Robert Delahunty's) actions enabling the Cheney-Bush Administration to subvert law and conduct torture were very, very wrong and not within the range of "academic freedom".
The video includes appearances by Oliver Stone, 9/11 family member Patricia Perry, actors Rosie Perez, Noah Emmerich, John Doman and Reg E. Cathey, and musical composer Philip Glass, among others, reading directly from a memo authored by Jay Bybee, former head of the Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel under the Bush administration. The memo was released in April as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I received the following via e-mail:
Opponents of torture will rally at the University of St. Thomas School of Law, LaSalle Ave and 11th Street, Minneapolis, on Monday, August 24, 9 - 11 AM to bring letters and voices of discontent to Dean Thomas Mengler regarding Professor Robert Delahunty. Prior to his current stint as professor of constitutional law for St.Thomas University, Robert Delahunty, along with John Yoo, authored an infamous memo (1/9/02) for the U.S. Justice Department which advised that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the war against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and terrorism. The 'legal' advice of this memo helped the Bush administration to legitimize harsh methods of interrogation, which are widely understood to be torture.
There hasn't been much news lately about Minnesota's foremost proponent of torture, Robert Delahunty. He's infamous for co-authoring the notorious torture memo with John Yoo. Delahunty is probably enjoying his summer break from the University of St. Thomas Law School where is he a tenured professor. However, I came across this list from After Downing Street of the top 50 US War Criminals. They list Delahunty as #2.
1. John Yoo: Professor of Law at Boalt Hall School of Law in Berkeley, California, with house at 1241 Grizzly Peak Blvd., Berkeley, (but a lawyer with the Pennsylvania bar from which he should be disbarred and would be if enough people demanded it) counseled the White House on how to get away with war crimes, wrote this memo promoting presidential power to launch aggressive war, and claimed the power to decree that the federal statutes against torture, assault, maiming, and stalking do not apply to the military in the conduct of the war, and to announce a new definition of torture limiting it to acts causing intense pain or suffering equivalent to pain associated with serious physical injury so severe that death, organ failure or permanent damage resulting in loss of significant body functions will likely result. Yoo claimed in 2005 that a president has the right to enhance an interrogation by crushing the testicles of someone's child. Yoo has been confronted in his classroom: video, and defended by the Washington Post, and again confronted in the classroom.
Additional collaborators:
2. Robert J. Delahunty, Yoo colleague, should be disbarred in NY
3. Patrick F. Philbin, Yoo colleague, Deputy, should be disbarred in D.C. and MA
(An interview with Chris Hedges is coming in a later article! - promoted by Grace Kelly)
A friend of mine (and "Veteran for Peace") Bob Heberle sent the following hard hitting letter today to Thomas Mengler, Dean of the University of St. Thomas School of Law questioning the Dean's stance in hiring and continuing to promote one of the legal architects involved in the Bush Administration's reinstituting the practice of torture.
While the Obama Administration is becoming complicit in the cover up of the Bush Administration's torture policies, at least there is a federal judge forcing the issue. While it is only a civil case, at least one of these war criminals will have to testify under oath.
The New York Times reports that a federal judge in California has ruled that former Bush administration lawyer John Yoo will have to testify in court about accusations that his work led to the torture of a detainee:
The government had asked Judge Jeffrey S. White of Federal District Court in San Francisco to dismiss the case filed by Jose Padilla, an American citizen who spent more than three years in a military brig as an enemy combatant. Judge White denied most elements of Mr. Yoo's motion and quoted a passage from the Federalist Papers that in times of war, nations, to be more safe, "at length become willing to run the risk of being less free."
So if Yoo faces heat for his crimes, will Minnesota's foremost proponent of torture, Robert Delahunty, face any questions about his role? Currently, Delahunty is a professor at the University of St. Thomas Law School teaching constitutional law.
(Most excellent, someone else writing about MN's foremost proponent of torture ... - promoted by The Big E)
A move has been started by several progressive organizations called "DisBar the Dirty Dozen",
calling for the disbarment of the lawyers who wrote and authorized the torture memos, which authorized waterboarding and other torture techniques legally accountable for their actions.
They have reported 12 attorneys to the Washington, D.C. Bar and 4 state bar ethics panels.
Interesting enough, University of St. Thomas Law Professor Robert Delahunty, who co-authored the torture memo, "'Application of Treaties and Laws to Al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees", along with John Yoo, who is now a Professor of Law at University of California - Berkeley http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...
was not on the list of 12 attorneys, who were reported to their State Bar Ethics Panels.
Two questions: 1. Should Professor Delahunty be reported for ethics violations as the 12 other lawyers have been and 2. If he were reported, would the State Ethics Panel fully and fairly investigate the matter?
In several states and the District of Columbia, a coalition of groups have filed complaints against 12 Bush attorneys. They are asking for the 12 to be disbarred for advocating torture.
The complaints - running more than 500 pages - enumerate in excruciating detail the case against key Bush officials that participated in defending "torture techniques" employed by the administration against alleged al Qaeda suspects.
The complaints were filed against former White House Legal Counsel attorneys John Yoo, Jay Bybee (pictured above right) and Stephen Bradbury; former Attorney Generals Alberto Gonzales, John Ashcroft and Michael Mukasey; former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff; former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney David Addington, Alice Fisher, William Haynes II, Douglas Feith and Timothy Flanigan with the state bars in the District of Columbia, New York, California, Texas and Pennsylvania.
(Raw Story)
So why doesn't someone file disbarment papers against University of St. Thomas Law School's Robert Delahunty? The guy who co-authored the infamous torture memo with John Yoo is teaching constitutional law. At a christian university. Who better to learn about the constitution from than from someone who helped rationalize war crimes?
Minnesota's foremost advocate of torture and St. Thomas University Law School professor Robert Delahunty may still face sanctions if not prosecution for co-authoring the infamous torture memo with John Yoo. Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) held a hearing today on the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) legal advice it gave the Bush Administration concerning torture.
Jesselyn Radack submitted written testimony and live-blogged it. Who's Jesselyn? She's an attorney. She's a whistleblower who complained about the government's treatment of John Walker Lindh and faced retaliation for doing her best to represent her client.
Just to be clear, Jesselyn was investigated for 5 years for trying to do what's right while Yoo, Delahunty and Bybee have gotten off scot-free for helping codify our nation's torture policy. Actually, they're all doing quite well. Yoo is teaching law at UC-Berkeley and just scored a gig as a columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer, Delahunty's right here in St. Paul teaching law and Bybee is a federal judge.
DoJ won't prosecute Bush lawyers. Univ. of St. Thomas Law School professor and MN's foremost torture advocate Robert Delahunty can breathe easier. This hurts where my hope meets my change.
