***Read*** Holder's statement at the DOJ site

[Solly Mack]

Statement of Attorney General Eric Holder Regarding a Preliminary Review into the Interrogation of Certain Detainees

Monday, August 24, 2009
"The Office of Professional Responsibility has now submitted to me its report regarding the Office of Legal Counsel memoranda related to so-called enhanced interrogation techniques. I hope to be able to make as much of that report available as possible after it undergoes a declassification review and other steps. Among other findings, the report recommends that the Department reexamine previous decisions to decline prosecution in several cases related to the interrogation of certain detainees.

"I have reviewed the OPR report in depth. Moreover, I have closely examined the full, still-classified version of the 2004 CIA Inspector General’s report, as well as other relevant information available to the Department. As a result of my analysis of all of this material, I have concluded that the information known to me warrants opening a preliminary review into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations. The Department regularly uses preliminary reviews to gather information to determine whether there is sufficient predication to warrant a full investigation of a matter. I want to emphasize that neither the opening of a preliminary review nor, if evidence warrants it, the commencement of a full investigation, means that charges will necessarily follow.

"Assistant United States Attorney John Durham was appointed in 2008 by then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate the destruction of CIA videotapes of detainee interrogations. During the course of that investigation, Mr. Durham has gained great familiarity with much of the information that is relevant to the matter at hand. Accordingly, I have decided to expand his mandate to encompass this related review. Mr. Durham, who is a career prosecutor with the Department of Justice and who has assembled a strong investigative team of experienced professionals, will recommend to me whether there is sufficient predication for a full investigation into whether the law was violated in connection with the interrogation of certain detainees.

"There are those who will use my decision to open a preliminary review as a means of broadly criticizing the work of our nation’s intelligence community. I could not disagree more with that view. The men and women in our intelligence community perform an incredibly important service to our nation, and they often do so under difficult and dangerous circumstances. They deserve our respect and gratitude for the work they do. Further, they need to be protected from legal jeopardy when they act in good faith and within the scope of legal guidance. That is why I have made it clear in the past that the Department of Justice will not prosecute anyone who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the interrogation of detainees. I want to reiterate that point today, and to underscore the fact that this preliminary review will not focus on those individuals.

"I share the President’s conviction that as a nation, we must, to the extent possible, look forward and not backward when it comes to issues such as these. While this Department will follow its obligation to take this preliminary step to examine possible violations of lawe will not allow our important work of keeping the American people safe to be sidetracked.

"I fully realize that my decision to commence this preliminary review will be controversial. As Attorney General, my duty is to examine the facts and to follow the law. In this case, given all of the information currently available, it is clear to me that this review is the only responsible course of action for me to take."



It says absolutely nothing about prosecuting Bush and Cheney, or anyone else for that matter.

It does say "preliminary review" on whether or not to actually open a full investigation...which may or may not lead to charges being filed.

I'm not saying prosecutions can't happen, just that Holder's statement is being - for whatever reasons - exaggerated.

[malaise]

1. The longest journey

begins with a single step. I'm happy for a start.

[goclark]

4. Me too ~

[malaise]

6. Hello there

goclark :fistbump:

[femmocrat]

7. Same here. It's more than we had yesterday.

Is anyone here familiar with Durham's earlier investigation?

[jaxx]

2. And people said it would never happen.

The President works within the laws of the land and this was the DOJ's call. Well done.

[opihimoimoi]

3. The 1st stitch is undone...wait till the rest becomes un raveled...fire works

[Individualist]

5. The loyalists are singing la, la, la, I can't hear you.

"I want to emphasize that neither the opening of a preliminary review nor, if evidence warrants it, the commencement of a full investigation, means that charges will necessarily follow." - Holder

[Solly Mack]

12. therein lies the rub

To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. We will see what happens I am expecting a few

bad apples, if you get me drift.

But perhaps this will move where the Pubicans don't want to go.

I don't believe in prayers, but perhaps this is one of those times to make an exception, for the sake of the nation.

Suffice it to say it took 25 years for Echeverria to face prosecution, and even longer for Pinochet.

[cdsilv]

9. Distract the pubbies from healthcare reform??? n/t

[dixiegrrrrl]

10. Tell ya what.

I'm gonna bookmark this.
for future reference.
However...let me point out how many "reviews" have been undertaken on this issue, and dozens of other issues, that never were discussed again.

Trust, but verify.

[Solly Mack]

11. You're preaching to the choir

:)

[dixiegrrrrl]

14. Sigh.........I know.

[katandmoon]

13. Could he SOUND any more reluctant short of announcing there would be NO investigation? Answer: NO.

[Solly Mack]

15. If this, if that, might this & might that, maybe if might could

even if might not...

People can make of it what they will (and boy, have they). I'll wait and see...but I ain't waving no poms-poms while I wait.

[Soylent Brice]

16. thank you for posting.

there is a LOT of snark going round these parts...

K&R

[Solly Mack]

17. You're so polite

:)

I wouldn't call it snark...more like bovine caca.

[Soylent Brice]

18. i do my best not to ruffle too many feathers.

angry and pissed off is no way to go through life.

but, i wouldn't disagree with your assessment either.

[Solly Mack]

19. That is very true

"angry and pissed off is no way to go through life."

:)

[annabanana]

20. I think this cannot be contained. After all.. the information is ALL

pretty much out there already. We KNOW who ordered the torture.. We KNOW who instructed the toady lawyers to write opinions that would justify what was CLEARLY illegal.

I believe this thread will eventually unravel the filthy sweater.

[Solly Mack]

21. That's where the hope is at

That this snowballs in such a way as to force prosecutions of ALL involved...good faith bullshit or not

and I'll wait and see (and keep writing letters demanding)

[xiamiam]

22. im happy that at least its beginning..but the timing?.my guess is that if the docs were not released

today...nothing would have happened...no announcement of an investigation...is that what it takes?...backs against the wall or nothing to be done...

[Call Me Wesley]

23. K&R.

"Enhanced interrogation techniques?" Since when became illegal 'torture' three words? Sounds like 'milk and cookies and a few - you know - shallow questions.'

"Further, they need to be protected from legal jeopardy when they act in good faith ..." No.

[Solly Mack]

24. Exactly!

and Thank you! :)

[slipslidingaway]

25. Thanks knr nt

[Solly Mack]

28. Hi, slipslidingaway!

:)

[slipslidingaway]

29. Hi Solly Mack :))) n/t

[mmonk]

26. Does that mean if I request legal advice and break the law with

that advice, I cannot be prosecuted? If not, we are not a free people. Case closed. Go bow before your king.

[Solly Mack]

27. Nope. We're peons and not of a protected class.

[Solly Mack]

30. kick