Deborah Pearlstein Quotations

Secretary Rumsfeld takes the extraordinary position in his brief that ordering torture was 'within the scope of his employment' as Secretary of Defense. Especially in light of recent finds that no one at senior levels has been held to account for gross acts of torture and abuse of detainees, this is a remarkable abdication of the responsibility of command.

People are dying in US custody and no one's being held to account.

Our report finds that there is a gap between policies leadership says it respects on paper, and behavior it actually tolerates in practice. That's not a way to stop torture from occurring, and it's not a winning strategy in the fight against terror.

Looking closely at these cases, we found time and again badly flawed investigations, and a lack of command responsibility for what's gone wrong ? especially in cases where victims were tortured to death. The result across the board has been to create a culture of impunity, where no one, especially not command, is held fully accountable for detainee deaths. If the United States is serious about preventing torture going forward, there must be accountability up and down the chain of command.

Juries are being presented a real mixed bag of evidence, where on one hand the person before them bears some direct responsibility for the crime that is committed, but on the other hand they're hearing evidence that this person was operating under either unlawful orders or mixed messages about what sort of job they were supposed to be doing.

We found across the board amazing flaws and failures in the way the investigations were conducted in case after case.

There is a culture of impunity that no one would be held fully accountable for detainee deaths.

The questions this case presents go to the heart of our constitutional system, and, if left unanswered, pose significant threats to our troops. These are the first military trials of their kind the United States had conducted since World War II, and we're gratified the court has recognized the need to act.

The Supreme Court's basic take is that when Congress has said something specific, the president's authority to take action beyond that is at its lowest ebb. This would seem to be right up against that wall. Congress has acted. The president seems to be circumventing it. And that raises an enormous constitutional question.

Death is a given in wartime. But this isn't about death in the heat of battle; this is about how we treat those already at the mercy of U.S. forces. It's about who is responsible for the policy and practice of the United States.

They were really in the forefront of establishing the Supreme Court as a defender of its own power. So it's a pretty significant test.

In 2004 the court said there is no such thing as unlimited executive power, even in wartime, but it left for another day the substantive rights any individuals have. This is really the Supreme Court's first opportunity to put meat on the bones of those rights.