For those of you unfamiliar with Radack, she worked at DoJ as an ethics advisor. She vehemently disputed the Administration's position that wounded American Taliban John Walker Lindh could be questioned without an attorney present. Evidence also suggests that Walker was either tortured and/or refused medical treatment for his wounds until he satisfactorily answered the interrogators questions.

In December 2001, while working at the Professional Responsibility and Advisory Office of the U.S. Department of Justice, Radack received an inquiry from the FBI about whether Lindh could be questioned without the presence of counsel. Radack responded that this was not permitted by law, since Lindh’s father had already retained a lawyer for him. The FBI nevertheless questioned Lindh without the presence of his lawyer. Radack thus advised that the confession should be sealed and could not be used in a criminal case against Lindh. The prosecution ignored her advice and used the evidence. Furthermore, Attorney General John Ashcroft stated that “to our knowledge, (Lindh) has not chosen a lawyer (at the time of interrogation)”.

Radack received an harsh job performance evaluation just two weeks after charges were filed against Lindh. Constitutional scholar Bruce Fein, a former Reagan Administration official, found the allegations so egregious that he agreed to defend her pro bono.

In March 2002, shortly before Radack’s employment at the Justice Department ended, U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III, who was presiding over the Lindh case, requested copies of the Justice Department’s internal correspondence on the case. The most important e-mails that Radack had sent in the case and which undermined the public statements by the Justice Department had meanwhile been removed from the official Lindh file in violation of the rules of federal procedure. Radack recovered the e-mails and informed her supervisor that her department had not complied with the court order.

Radack passed her e-mails to reporters at Newsweek. Of course, in the leak obsessed Bush Administration which selectively leaked like a Dutch Boy with his finger in the proverbial dike decided to investigate her for releasing the e-mails.

In June 2002, the District Court ordered the Justice Department to investigate the origins of the e-mails. Instead of investigating the cover-up, the Justice Department put Radack under criminal investigation after she declined to speak at length to investigators. Ronald Powell, a special agent for the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General, informed Radack's new employer of the investigation and questioned its staff and lawyers, and Radack lost her job as a result. U.S. senator Ted Kennedy submitted questions about this affair to Attorney General John Ashcroft in March 2003 and expressed concern about her situation in May 2003. After some time, the criminal investigation was closed with no charges, but her case was referred to the state bar of Maryland, which eventually cleared her of all wrongdoing.

I should note that Radack had difficulty finding a job as an attorney before the Maryland Bar cleared her since no firm would hire a lawyer under investigation by the Bar Association. Radack was also on the No Fly List and subject to a number of indignities that most of us have never experienced nor would they want to.

For a list of articles on Radack or by her, go to herweb site.

Radack risked her career because as an officer of the court she had a duty to report criminal activity and she felt the decision to torture Lindh and deny him legal counsel was indeed criminal. Moreover, she risked prosecution from the most politicized DoJ in American history because she had the chutzpah to correct the lies of the torture enablers in the Administration.

According to her own website, Radack was convinced by Daniel Ellsburg and Ray McGovern to publish her book Canary in a Coalmine.

They understood that this administration was breaking our laws and why I was forced to became a whistle blower. They understood why I was so angry and why I'm still angry. After all, I had been a proud member of the Department of Justice and they knew that it meant the world to me. So they convinced me to keep fighting for the very existence of Justice within the Department of Justice And our country at large.

Contrast the risks that Radack took to the craven behavior of the Gang of Eight which knew some details of the torture program but stood by silent as American soldiers died as blowback from the ill-fated and sadistic torture program of the Pinnochet, er Bush Administration.

UPDATE:

First time ever on Rec list! Thank you so much for all of your feedback.

UPDATE 2:

I received a comment from Jesselyn Radack, and IMO it is worth repeating in the body of the diary.

"...There are lots of tentacles to pursue here, but to the key question of your diary, I have applied to positions within the Department of Justice, specifically the Office of Legal Counsel that wrote the horrendous torture memos, and also the Civil Division--which is headed by the recently-confirmed Tony West--John Walker Lindh's attorney. No response."

Update 3:

I received some additional comments from Jesselyn regarding the torture memos. Here are her thoughts on the subject, which bear repeating:

Prosecute. Not prosecuting because it's a bad time politically is . . .political. Politics should not affect the rule of law. Period. Obama, with the highest respect due, stand down. Let Eric Holder and Congress do their jobs. We complained about the Justice Department being politicized during the Bush Administration, but your constant and conflicting comments are giving the same appearance.

I would agree with that statement since IMO the Obama Administration is so fearful of being accused of Rovian politics that it has offended the sensibilities of millions of Americans who don't want torture or warrantless wiretapping done in their names.

Jesselyn predicts that the next round of torture photos will be even more shocking than what we saw five years ago at Abu Gharib:

The additional photos scheduled to be released on May 28 are even worse that what we've seen. But Abu Ghraib should have been enough. Hooded people hooked up to electrodes standing on a box should be enough. There is more direct evidence in the public either than in most circumstantial cases. Think "silver platter doctrine." The case for war crimes is presented on a silver platter, tied up with a bow, with a cherry on top.

I don't know why even liberal newspapers like the New York Times have said that "criminal prosecution" is unlikely for the torture lawyers. The Justice Department's internal watchdog, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) can make bar referrals and referrals for criminal prosecution. It referred me for both. The fact that they have not done so with John Yoo, Jay Bybee and their ilk speaks for itself. Why imbue this office with any credibility whatsoever?

Moeover, she noted that the Obama announcement to not prosecute CIA personnel — which by itself was a naked political decision — was wrong on the merits:

I submit that granting blanket immunity--meaning total (transactional) immunity to the CIA was premature, given that it preceded the recent release of the Senate reports, which said the torture program originated with the CIA. Immunity deals are supposed to be a two way street--if the CIA gets immunity, then the whole truth should be laid bare before the public for a true public accounting. There are no Fifth Amendment concerns about self-incrimination because the CIA has been given a free pass. So formalize the immunity deal. Immunity for the whole truth.

That is what we want. This is not, nor has it ever been a partisan witch hunt. Torture is always a crime. If this had been done by the Obama Administration, I would feel the same way.