Fuck Obama

[Bruce Dazzling]

Obama's new view of his own war powers
By Glenn Greenwald
Thursday, Mar 31, 2011 13:32 ET

Back in January, 2006, the Bush Justice Department released a 42-page memo arguing that the President had the power to ignore Congressional restrictions on domestic eavesdropping, such as those imposed by FISA (the 30-year-old law that made it a felony to do exactly what Bush got caught doing: eavesdropping on the communications of Americans without warrants). That occurred roughly 3 months after I began blogging, and -- to my embarrassment now -- I was actually shocked by the brazen radicalism and extremism expressed in that Memo. It literally argued that Congress had no power to constrain the President in any way when it came to national security matters and protecting the nation.

To advance this defense, Bush lawyers hailed what they called "the President's role as sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs"; said the President’s war power inherently as "Commander-in-Chief" under Article II "includes all that is necessary and proper for carrying these powers into execution"; favorably cited an argument made by Attorney General Black during the Civil War that statutes restricting the President's actions relating to war "could probably be read as simply providing 'a recommendation' that the President could decline to follow at his discretion"; and, as a result of all that, Congress "was pressing or even exceeding constitutional limits" when it attempted to regulate how the President could eavesdrop on Americans. As a result, the Bush memo argued, the President had the power to ignore the law because FISA, to the extent it purported to restrict the President's war powers, "would be unconstitutional as applied in the context of this Congressionally authorized armed conflict."

That claim -- that the President and he alone possesses all powers relating to war under the "Commander-in-Chief" clause of Article II -- became the cornerstone of Bush's "ideology of lawlessness." In a post that same month defining that ideology, I argued that this lawlessness was grounded in the September 25, 2001, War Powers memo by John Yoo, which infamously concluded as follows:

In both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution, Congress has recognized the President's authority to use force in circumstances such as those created by the September 11 incidents. Neither statute, however, can place any limits on the President's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response. These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make.

That was the heart and soul of Bush lawlessness: no "statute can place any limits on the President's determinations" as "these decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make."

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton told the House of Representatives that "the White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission." As TPM put it: "the administration would ignore any and all attempts by Congress to shackle President Obama's power as commander in chief to make military and wartime decisions," as such attempts would constitute "an unconstitutional encroachment on executive power." As Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman noted, Clinton was not relying on the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (WPR); to the contrary, her position is that the Obama administration has the power to wage war in violation even of the permissive dictates of that Resolution. And, of course, the Obama administration has indeed involved the U.S. in a major, risky war, in a country that has neither attacked us nor threatened to, without even a pretense of Congressional approval or any form of democratic consent. Whether the U.S. should go to war is a decision, they obviously believe, "for the President alone to make."

Initially, I defy anyone to identify any differences between the administration's view of its own authority -- that it has the right to ignore Congressional restrictions on its war powers -- and the crux of Bush radicalism as expressed in the once-controversial memos by John Yoo and the Bush DOJ. There is none. That's why Yoo went to The Wall Street Journal to lavish praise on Obama's new war power theory: because it's Yoo's theory (as I was finishing this post, I saw that Adam Serwer makes a similar point today). If anything, one could argue that Yoo's theory of unilateral war-making was more reasonable, as it was at least tied to an actual attack on the U.S.: the 9/11 attacks. Here, the Obama administration is arrogating unto the President the unilateral, unrestrained right to start wars in all circumstances, whether or not the U.S. is attacked.

But what Clinton's stated view really harkens back to is the Iran-contra scandal, when the Reagan administration funded the Nicaraguan contras despite an express Congressional prohibition on doing so, and then took the position -- when exposed -- that Congress has no power to restrict its national security decisions. That position was pioneered in 1987 by then GOP Rep. Dick Cheney and his longtime aide David Addington, who wrote a dissenting report to the finding of the Iran-contra committee that the administration's funding of the contras violated the law. As Charlie Savage detailed in his book, Takeover, Cheney insisted that Congress lacked the power to restrict the President's national security power in any way -- i.e., that the prohibition on funding the contras was constitutionally null and void -- and it was this theory of Presidential Omnipotence which laid the groundwork for Bush 43's imperial presidency:

Cheney has been on a thirty-year quest to implement his views of unfettered executive power For example, when it was revealed in 2005 that the Bush administration had been illegally spying on Americans, Cheney responded: "If you want to understand why this program is legal…go back and read my Iran-Contra report." In that report -- authored in 1987 -- Cheney and aide David Addington defended President Reagan by claiming it was "unconstitutional for Congress to pass laws intruding" on the "commander in chief."

Isn't that bolded part -- the self-proclaimed crux of Cheneyite executive power radicalism -- exactly what Hillary Clinton asserted yesterday on behalf of the Obama administration to justify the unauthorized war in Libya? Yes, it is.

Much more at the link.

[justdrew]

well, Obama is toast I think. No way is he winning reelection. will this fucked up party be able to mount another candidate?

Who cares? The script was already written, Obama even said so early on, that he was happy being a one-termer.

The question is will the American people actually take control of their elections? Or will they permit themselves to be spoon-fed two more corporatist "candidates" (appointees, really).

well, the way to deal with that is to find a candidate NOW and start ginning up the democratic primary machine and pushing that candidate. Anyone have any ideas on who it should be?

How about Howard Dean?

[Nordic]

I used to like Howard, but not any more. He either always was, or has turned into, just another Democrat player.

We need someone from outside the machine, preferably an entirely new party, because neither of the parties will let anyone good rise to the surface.

[crikkett]

[freemason9]

let the federal structure collapse into states/territories that rebuild actual democratic socialist economies,

and allow the values and sanity of socialism to replace the barbarism and horror of capitalism.

one state/territory at a time.

i am an optimist, I believe this is already afoot.

[Bruce Dazzling]

I hadn't written a new blog post in over six months, but I'm going to do my best to shake off the rust and the apathy.

Here's a new one, in which I heap praise upon R.I., call Obama an evil monster, and compare myself to Christian Slater.

Wait, what????

I’m sorry, but Obama is a corporatist tool
America Psycho
4/4/2011

“Sorry, I’m feeling a little superior tonight. Seven schools in seven states, and the only thing different is my locker combination.”

~ J.D. – Heathers

Heathers is a movie about tribalism, group think, conformity, and the ways in which people’s thoughts and actions are constricted by the groups they belong to, or aspire to belong to. On the surface, it’s about the ridiculousness of high school, but it’s really about the ridiculousness of EVERYTHING. But more to the point, it’s about how astonishingly difficult it is to be an aware, awake individual existing in the echo chamber of nonsense we think of as reality. And just as it often happens in real life, the character in Heathers who sees things as they truly are is ultimately destroyed by his failure to vigorously shake the zombies from their slumber.

Why on earth am I talking about a Christian Slater film from 1988? Well, I bring it up now because, as my prolonged absence from writing this blog would suggest, I’ve been feeling more and more alienated from the other 99% of the population who seem to be as happy as pigs in shit as long as they have their Nikes, Big Macs, and $5.25 café au laits.

Even though I haven’t been blogging, however, I have been a posting machine on Facebook, where I’m able to interact in a quicker and dirtier fashion than I can here. It’s funny, because I’m seen as a “radical leftist” by my right-leaning acquaintances, and as a closet Republican by a lot of my “liberal” friends who can’t be bothered to look past the fact that I’m criticizing their hero, President Peace Prize, and let’s face it, if you criticize a Democrat then you MUST be a Republican, because there are NO OTHER OPTIONS. Only left and right. Blue and red. You remember what happened when Ralph Nader ran for President as a third-party candidate, don’t you? He ruined EVERYTHING!!!!!! The problem wasn’t all of the other rubes who voted for Bush and Gore, and it certainly wasn’t the crooked Supreme Court. Nope, the problem was the third-party, so I guess we can never try THAT again.

</sarcasm>

Anyway, I’ve decided that the first step towards real change is a realization that change is actually required. With this in mind, I’ve decided to start small and impact my immediate community by using my Facebook page to convince my friends that Barack Obama is a corporatist tool of the military empire. You’d think that this would be a relatively simple task, since most of my friends are well-educated, creative, smart self-proclaimed liberals, and Obama’s allegiance to the new Amerikan fascism is so self-evident at this point that even the Neocon in Chief, Bill Kristol, is finding it increasingly difficult to hide his admiration.

More at the link.

[Saurian Tail]

"I’m finding myself at a cross-roads because I really don’t know what to do any more. You can’t lead a movement when people don’t want to be moved. Especially when so much of their self-esteem is invested in the belief that they’re actually supporting the good guy. This often leads to great logical contortions in order to save face instead of admitting that they’ve been deceived by a carnival huckster with a multi-million dollar P.R. team."

--- from Bruce Dazzling's blog post linked above ...

Here is that multi-million dollar PR team at work ... it is really hard to overcome this kind of marketing/branding ... it hits triggers deep in the psyche:



Farm, Church, Home, Flag ... then normal looking everyday people with hopes and dreams of a beautiful peaceful America ... all tied up with the Obama brand.

[8bitagent]

Watching documentaries about George Mcgovern, the person RFK was when he was destined to become president in 1968, Martin Luther King Jr, John Lennon...
Obama doesn't even come close to the integrity and virtues of these men.

It was clear by early 2008 the PTB had were set on making Obama win, yet it was unclear what the angle would be: marginalized Carter like transitional president before a truly fascist right winger came in 2012...or a new face to push through the continuing neocon agenda and put the Democrats to sleep?

So far, it bounces between these two dynamics and it seems impossible to predict what will happen.

[freemason9]

i heard on the radio today that obama is a socialist

[Nordic]

If Bush was evil for bombing children, then so is Obama.
If Bush was evil for wire tapping your phone, then so is Obama.
If Bush was evil for facilitating the largest wealth transfer to the rich in human history, then so is Obama.
If Bush was evil for having a military budget larger than all other countries combined, then so is Obama.
If Bush was evil for renditions, torture, and locking people away in gulags without trial, then so is Obama.
If Bush was evil for deep water drilling and ignoring safety regulations, then so is Obama.
It goes on and on and on.

Right on, Bruce.

It really is very simple.

[Nordic]

Farm, Church, Home, Flag ... then normal looking everyday people with hopes and dreams of a beautiful peaceful America ... all tied up with the Obama brand.

Wow, that vid is up over at Rawstory, and the comments below it are devastatingly anti-Obama.

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/ ... s-with-us/

#
G1B [Moderator] 1 hour ago
It started with us and ended as soon as obama put his cabinet together.


Jorge Orwell 1984 [Moderator] 1 hour ago
I forced myself to watch the ad mainly because I wanted to know if anyone in the video said anything specific about Obama's Bush policies. No one did. Nothing at all. It was all just fluff.

What "changes" in the last 2.5 years is this woman in the video talking about? Again, nothing specific. The "energy and hope that he had for this country?" That's all emotional stuff. Nothing specific.

Of course there's the ever-present, "I don't agree with Obama on everything but I respect and trust him" said that one guy. So that guy respects war criminals! Huh.

Pathetic.


Raven [Moderator] 1 hour ago
What there is still money left in the middle and lower classes that the banks and corporations haven't stolen yet. Or maybe he thinks the rich need another tax cut. Barry is a lair, and a corporate lackey. It's too bad that the powers that be won't let a honest, sane, and intelligent candidate run against him.


SensiScholar [Moderator] 2 hours ago
Us? Who the fuck is us?

Naw, bitch...

It begins with you, Goldman Sachs, BP, Billy Tauzin, PhARMA, AHIP, the lobbyist Tom Daschle, your bitch ass ex-Chief of Staff can vote for you, Githner, Summers and Rubin can vote for you since they made out well and no one went to jail, Bush, Cheney and Rummy didn't go to the Hague so maybe you can count on their support, who else, who else made out like fat fucking rats with expanded monopolies and forced consumers or just got $25 TRILLION in free money and loan guarantees or how about those who didn't even get indicted but the Obushma DoJ filed NOT ONE GODDAMN CRIMINAL COMPLAINT that can support this RethugliKlan sack of shit?

Us my ass...

Remember, I'm a "not serious" "whiner" who needs to "buck up" because I wouldn't be happy "with the Pentagon eliminated, Dennis Kucinich as president and Canadian style single payer" because I'm "fucking retarded" or, at least, this is all the shit you and yours talked about me in your one and only term, bitch.

Obushma's girls will be set for life with the hundreds of millions Obushma will rake in after office just like Clinton did, after all, its the same fucking playbook with the same rich fuck's teabags in their mouths sucking like a champ be it Koch or Blankfein. It's my kids and everyone else's kids who are fucked because of this silver tongued snake.


Eugeina [Moderator] 2 hours ago
That was sickening. Good actors, though. Obama is an insane meglomaniac. There is no other possible explaination for him thinking he is doing a good job.
#

Brimstone Hill [Moderator] 6 hours ago
Audacity you can believe in.
#

SensiScholar [Moderator] 2 hours ago in reply to Brimstone Hill
Priceless!
#

Big_Alpha1 [Moderator] 7 hours ago
FUCK YOU OBAMA! FUCK YOU!
#

Sonya Lee [Moderator] 8 hours ago
I'm out.

I'm tired of the Left blaming US for not "doing enough" to effect change. We, the Middle Class, have carried the recession and even the blame for it in some circles over our backs like pack mules, and we haven't done enough? "Change takes time"? My GOD, you had all three houses of Government and the Bully Pulpit? What more can WE give you that you didn't already have? Obama isn't even defending "Obamacare". And on this very day, he acquiesced to the Right on trying 9/11 terrorists in our courts.

Lose my digits, man. I'm out.
#

Pete2099 [Moderator] 12 hours ago
If Obama wins the democrat primary (which the democrats in charge will stop anyone from running against him) there will be two republicans running against each other in the general election.
What has Obama done different than BUSH???
#

SensiScholar [Moderator] 2 hours ago in reply to Pete2099
Obushma printed a few trillion more dollars for Wall Street with no strings attached than the chimp printed?

Obushma's era has seen higher profits for big oil, the legal drug cartel and the insurance monopoly?

But you're correct, sir. There will be 2 RethugliKlans running and I'd rather vote for one of Charlie Sheen's whores than either of the big six's whores. LOL

#

P Matthews [Moderator] 13 hours ago
McLean, Virginia -- My wife and I worked our tails off to help Barack Obama get elected in 2008. We wrote, called, and donated more than we could really afford to help the campaign. Of course, we are lifetime Democrats.

Once in office, President Obama betrayed us at every turn. I can't believe we are still at war in Iraq, we are now in over our heads in Afghanistan, and we have launched a brand new war in Libya. ENOUGH Already!

We have lost over 4,000 American boys, and we now owe more than ever before in history, and we still haven't caught Osama bin Laden!

President Obama is torturing a 23-year-old Private here in Virginia who is accused of releasing terrible facts showing numerous war crimes. We have the least transparent government in my lifetime, and Obama has failed to close the worst American torture prison in our history.

I will vote for Obama's opponent next time, even is that opponent has horns!

#

AlanSmithee [Moderator] 14 hours ago
...blah blah hope for change blah blah lesser evil blah blah scary republicans blah blah...
#

mrcoldheart : [Moderator] 12 hours ago in reply to AlanSmithee
You might not always agree with his methods but he's still light years better then the psychotic nonsense coming from the Right.

Obama 2012


#

inky99 [Moderator] 0 minutes ago in reply to mrcoldheart
Look at the big picture. Why do you think the right - wing nutcases sound so nutty? That's part of the plan. It makes Obama look reasonable by comparison, when in reality he's the SAME as Bush.

They're all on the same team, don't make the mistake of thinking they're not. Because that's what they want you to think.

It's all marketing, it's all branding. This commercial is a classic example. Very slick, pure Madison Avenue snake oil.
#

SensiScholar [Moderator] 1 hour ago in reply to mrcoldheart
Nader 2012
#

buckfutter [Moderator] 7 hours ago in reply to mrcoldheart
I don't think so. Sure, Obama is far more articulate and fluent in the English language than his predecessor, but the result is the same. EXACTLY the same. The POTUS is a puppet position.
#

Pete2099 [Moderator] 12 hours ago in reply to mrcoldheart
Sure.
Same policies , different names on the White house doors.
What has he done differently than the previous dictatorial administration , except for his BS.
#

IlluminatiRules [Moderator] 15 hours ago
LOL, this is the type of tripe that gets morons convinced this guy is who should you vote for, its all a joke, we in the Illuminati who control this puppet will have to tell Barry to give these people a bonus. It must have been hard to do this with a straight face.

Well it looks good for us, the people are still participating in our WWE political system, oh you really have a choice America, just make sure its one of the choices we give you, not guys like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich...Ralph Nader..none of those guys. We will make sure you don't vote for them either buy telling you they are wacky or lying..and since you don't think we will win.
#

mrcoldheart [Moderator] 12 hours ago in reply to IlluminatiRules
Sorry but Ron Paul would be alright if he wasn't deliriously pursuing a handicapped government completely ignoring the dangers from unfettered corporations. He also believes in the 'Invisible Hand' of business myth to a fault, believing it could solve civil rights issues.

Dennis Kucinich is equally flaky running on releasing secret files on UFO files. Although I used to support him he gave up months before his party had to choose.

Not that either of them are even running this year and considering Ron Paul was on the ticket last term he's not going to get far his third or fourth try.
#

[Bruce Dazzling]

"I’m finding myself at a cross-roads because I really don’t know what to do any more. You can’t lead a movement when people don’t want to be moved. Especially when so much of their self-esteem is invested in the belief that they’re actually supporting the good guy. This often leads to great logical contortions in order to save face instead of admitting that they’ve been deceived by a carnival huckster with a multi-million dollar P.R. team."

--- from Bruce Dazzling's blog post linked above ...

Here is that multi-million dollar PR team at work ... it is really hard to overcome this kind of marketing/branding ... it hits triggers deep in the psyche:



Farm, Church, Home, Flag ... then normal looking everyday people with hopes and dreams of a beautiful peaceful America ... all tied up with the Obama brand.

Triumph of the willfully delusional.

Those comments from Rawstory are heartening though, Nordic. Thanks for that.

Welcome to Amerika, I love you.

[Bruce Dazzling]

I'm posting this article even though I find the premise laughable that Obama is being "forced by Congres" to do anything against his will.

Oh, and have we completely given up on using the term "alleged" to describe people who have yet to be tried?

Cowardly, Stupid, and Tragically Wrong

The Obama administration's appalling decision to give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a military trial.
By Dahlia LithwickPosted
Slate
Monday, April 4, 2011, at 5:42 PM ET

Today, by ordering a military trial at Guantanamo for 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-defendants, Attorney General Eric Holder finally put the Obama administration's stamp on the proposition that some criminals are "too dangerous to have fair trials."

In reversing one of its last principled positions—that American courts are sufficiently nimble, fair, and transparent to try Mohammed and his confederates—the administration surrendered to the bullying, fear-mongering, and demagoguery of those seeking to create two separate kinds of American law. This isn't just about the administration allowing itself to be bullied out of its commitment to the rule of law. It's about the president and his Justice Department conceding that the system of justice in the United States will have multiple tiers—first-class law for some and junk law for others.

Every argument advanced to scuttle the Manhattan trial for KSM was false or feeble: Open trials are too dangerous; major trials are too expensive; too many secrets will be spilled; public trials will radicalize the enemy; the public doesn't want it.

Of course, exactly the same unpersuasive claims could have been made about every major criminal trial in Western history, from the first World Trade Center prosecution to the Rosenberg trial to the Scopes Monkey trial to Nuremburg. Each of those trials could have been moved to some dark cave for everyone's comfort and well-being. Each of those defendants could have been tried using some handy choose-your-own-ending legal system to ensure a conviction. But the principle that you don't tailor justice to the accused won out, and, time after time, the world benefited.

Now the Obama administration—having loudly and proudly made every possible argument against a two-tier justice system—is capitulating to it.

But make no mistake about it: It won't stop here. Putting the administration's imprimatur on the idea that some defendants are more worthy of real justice than others legitimates the whole creeping, toxic American system of providing one class of legal protections for some but not others: special laws for children of immigrants, special laws for people who might look like immigrants, different jails for those who seem too dangerous, special laws for people worthy of wiretapping, and special laws for corporations. After today it will be easier than ever to use words and slogans to invent classes of people who are too scary to try in regular proceedings.

Say what you want about how Congress forced Obama's hand today by making it all but impossible to try the 9/11 conspirators in regular Article III courts.* The only lesson learned is that Obama's hand can be forced. That there is no principle he can't be bullied into abandoning. In the future, when seeking to pass laws that treat different people differently for purely political reasons, Congress need only fear-monger and fabricate to get the president to cave. Nobody claims that this was a legal decision. It was a political triumph or loss, depending on your viewpoint. The rule of law is an afterthought, either way.

It may not matter to you today that the U.S. government has invented a new class of criminals fit for a new class of trials. It may bother you a lot more when special rules are created for unions, or corporations, or the poor, or the children of illegal immigrants, or eco-terrorists. Today's capitulation will just embolden Congress to do all that and more.

A year ago, Holder told the New Yorker's Jane Mayer that the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would serve as "the defining event of my time as attorney general." Sadly, he's probably right. He will be remembered for having sacrificed what he knew to be right for some payoff to be named later. We will, all of us, in the long run bear the costs of that choice.

Correction, April 5, 2011: This sentence originally referred to Article II courts. (Return to the corrected sentence.)

[Bruce Dazzling]

This article is from last year, but Marcy Wheeler demonstrates that "evidence" gained through torture can be deemed admissible now that KSM will be tried via Military Commission.

Of course, that probably has nothing to do with the decision though.

Breaking! Torture Is Illegal! Except when Consistent with the Interests of Justice!

By: emptywheel Wednesday April 28, 2010 10:04 am

Thanks to BoxTurtle for linking to the manual for military commissions rushed out last night in time for the Omar Khadr hearing.

There are a number of interesting details in it, but since Khadr’s hearing today pertains to torture–whether statements he made after allegedly being tortured will be admissible–I thought I’d start with what the manual says about torture. And, ironically, there’s a big section on torture … in the section describing potential charges under military commissions. Here’s how the manual describes the crime of torture:

(11) TORTURE.
a. Text. “Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind, shall be punished, if death results to one or more of the victims, by death or such other punishment as a military commission under this chapter may direct, and, if death does not result to any of the victims, by such punishment, other than death, as a military commission under this chapter may direct.”

The details for the most part track the analysis done by OLC on torture, including the language on intent:

(3) The accused intended to inflict such severe physical or mental pain or suffering;

But there’s also this, which appears to be a potential loophole:

(6) The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with hostilities.

Now, given that torture is laid out all nice and tidy like that in the military commission manual, you’d think that the discussion of whether evidence collected through the use of torture is admissible might also include some comment about what happens to the people who did the torture if evidence is deemed inadmissible because it was collected using torture. But it doesn’t.

Here’s what the manual says about statements collected using torture.

(1) Exclusion of Statements Obtained by Torture or Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment. No statement, obtained by the use of torture, or by cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (as defined by section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 2000dd)), whether or not under color of law, shall be admissible in a trial by military commission, except against a person accused of torture or such treatment as evidence that the statement was made.

Which would seem to say no evidence collected using torture will be admissible in these military commissions, unless it’s to try to someone for torture.

Except there’s this loophole:

(5) Derivative Evidence.

(A) Evidence Derived from Statements Obtained by Torture or Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment. Evidence derived from a statement that would be excluded under section (a)(1) of this rule may not be received in evidence against an accused who made the statement if the accused makes a timely motion to suppress or an objection, unless the military judge determines by a preponderance of the evidence that—

(i) the evidence would have been obtained even if the statement had not been made; or

(ii) use of such evidence would otherwise be consistent with the interests of justice. [my emphasis]

That is, to exclude evidence collected using torture, the defendant has to make a timely motion to suppress that evidence. Fair enough.

But the military commission can still use the evidence if it decides the evidence would have been obtained anyway (this seems to be a giant wall of protection for evidence collected using a clean team, meaning that evidence that matches tortured confessions but was collected using other means can still be used even if the evidence also came out in a tortured confession).

Or, more troubling, if the military judge decides that using evidence collected using torture “would otherwise be consistent with the interests of justice.”

Here’s what the manual has to say about “interests of justice:”

The intention of Mil. Comm. R. Evid. 304(a)(5) is that the “interests of justice” standard generally will restrict the admission of evidence derived from statements obtained by torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (other than where the evidence would have been obtained even if the statement had not been made). The admission of evidence derived from a statement that was made incident to lawful conduct during military or intelligence operations and that would not be excluded under section (a)(1) of this rule generally should be regarded as consistent with the interests of justice for purposes of section (a)(5)(B) of this rule.

So torture is illegal. Except when it consists of “lawful conduct during military or intelligence operations,” in which case torture can be regarded as “consistent with the interests of justice.”

Here’s what the manual says about statements made by others under torture (I originally didn’t find this section–this is an update):

(3) Statements from persons other than the accused allegedly produced by coercion. When the degree of coercion inherent in the production of a statement from a person other than the accused offered by either party is disputed, such statement may only be admitted if the military judge finds that—

(A) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value;

(B) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence; and

(C) the statement was not obtained through the use of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment as defined in section 1003(d) of the Detainee Treatment Act, Pub. L. 109-148 (2005) (codified at 42 U.S.C. 2000dd(d)).

Since this section requires that the coerced statement both serve the interest of justice and that it not be obtained through use of torture, it seems that self-incrimination through torture is allowed, when consistent with the interests of justice, but not the incrimination of others.

[8bitagent]

So Obama wants to retry KSM for "war crimes"...as if, causing the murder of countless innocent Iraqis, Afghans and now Pakistanis and Libyans(as well as Yemeni and Somalians) isn't a war crime?