Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Home Front: Politix

CIA memo prosecutions 'possible'

2009-04-22

We ran a version of this yesterday, and we're running it today just to make sure everyone sees it.

US President Barack Obama has left open the possibility of prosecuting officials who wrote CIA memos allowing harsh interrogation techniques. It would be up to the attorney general whether to prosecute, Mr Obama said.

That could truly sunder the body politic ...

The memos detailed a range of methods the CIA could use on terrorism suspects under the Bush administration.

The methods were not torture, though they came hard up against the line. What the memos show, and what the media and Democrats (but I repeat myelf) don't say, is that the Bush administration people did a fair bit of hand-wringing and soul-searching about what was and wasn't permissible.

Mr Obama had said he would not use anti-torture laws to prosecute CIA personnel who relied in good faith on legal opinions issued after 9/11.

He's just going to ruin their reputations in a 'Truth Commission' hearing and their finances by forcing them to 'lawyer-up'.

The BBC's James Coomarasamy in Washington says the president's comments marked a change of tone amid growing pressure from the Democratic Party not to rule out potential prosecutions.

Just remember, what goes around comes around. If the Dhimmis want to criminalize policy decisions, there will be people in 2013 who will be urging President Palin to do the same ...

"With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws," Mr Obama said.

So the 'progressive' Dhimmis have brought the heat, and as usual Bambi is folding like a lawn chair ...

He also said he could support a congressional investigation of the issue if it was conducted in a bipartisan way.

Which is political speak for having it all done by and for Democrats. Don't expect anyone to grill Nancy Pelosi on her role.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel had previously said in a television interview that the administration did not want to pursue those who "devised policy".

Understanding, as he does, that he himself could be forced to lawyer-up someday ...

Former Vice-President Dick Cheney has said the techniques produced results. He has called for the release of additional documents that he said would show what the techniques yielded.

To which the Dhimmis demanded that Dick shut up, rather than release the additional documents. Tells you something right there.

On Thursday, when the memos were released, Mr Obama said CIA personnel working from Bush administration legal opinions would not be prosecuted. His comments drew criticism from human rights organisations and UN officials, who say charges are necessary to prevent future abuses and in order to hold people accountable.

All the usual suspects chimed in right on cue ...

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Mr Obama said the episode involved a "host of very complicated issues".

Meaning, he doesn't understand them and the Teleprompter wasn't loaded with a canned answer ...

An investigation would be acceptable, he said, "outside of the typical hearing process" and with "independent participants who are above reproach".

Glenn Greenwald, Markos Moulitsas, and Oliver 'Smirky' Willis come to mind ...

He added: "As a general view, I do think we should be looking forward, not back.

"I do worry about this getting so politicised that we cannot function effectively and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations."

So then tell your people to shut up and get on with business ...

Posted by:Steve White

#20 If he does this, and I think he will (with a wink and a nod to the DOJ, whom he'll try to pin the decision's responsibility upon) and we are hit again in a meaningful way, then he is going to have his feet in fire. The Tea Parties will look like a neighborhood social.

Posted by: remoteman 2009-04-22 23:26

#19 What a bunch of damn preening, politiking, and peacocking for the sake of politics going on in the administration. I wish our elected officials would get real and do some useful friggin work in Washington.

Posted by: JohnQC 2009-04-22 19:14

#18 For better or worse Bush's fundamental decision on policy after 9/11 was in favor of liberation and therapy for the arab-islamic world, not war, punishment and retribution. He even declined to clearly name the enemy in order to protect the feelings of Muslims.

Bush got away with this decision because, as a Republican, he enjoyed a high level of trust on matters of defense. However, had there been a series of additional attacks on the continental US, even Bush would have been forced to swiftly crush and punish Afghanistan (and not only Afghanistan) even at the cost of horrific casualties among the enemy's civilian population.

Whether Bush's decision was wise or not, preventing new attacks at all costs (even using "torture") was the price to be paid for largely sparing the enemy.

Posted by: Andy Gravirt4836 2009-04-22 18:12

#17 Is prosecution not a bit Ex Post Facto?

Posted by: Mike N. 2009-04-22 14:45

#16 Mr Obama had said he would not use anti-torture laws to prosecute

He did'nt say he would not have hearings and smear the Bush admin in public. A kangaroo court is much more valuable leftie PR than a real trial. He also did not rule out human rights violations, civil rights violations, etc...

Posted by: 49 Pan 2009-04-22 13:49

#15 *comment above*

Do the above to a terrorist, and Obama will prosecute you.

Posted by: Unutle Brown8234 2009-04-22 13:06

#14 - When captured, you are not allowed to go to the rest room, you must pee in your pants.
- When you arrive at our facilities and must go to the restroom, you will do so in a room that has a window where everyone can watch you go to the rest room.
- By the way, we WILL take your blood. And if you do not cooperate, we WILL take your blood by force to determine if you are a bad guy.

CIA? No, various police departments in Texas, DWI task forces.

Posted by: Unutle Brown8234 2009-04-22 13:05

#13 Is there a bad idea Obama doesn't endorse? The government embezzled the Social Security funds and spent the money, spent years loaning out trillions of dollars to people who could never have paid the loans, bankrupted the country, and now wants to run a politically correct intelligence service. If Obama is not really careful, voters will decide the government is no better than criminals.

Posted by: whatadeal 2009-04-22 12:48

#12 I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively

Translation: Ok Democrat leaders youve got the green light for your dog and pony shows as long as you budget enough time and resources to pass my boondoggles through congress.

Bottom line: No matter the stakes, its highly doubtful that the DoJ is prepared to take on a constitutionally questionable prosecution of officials who were merely asked to offer their legal opinions. Its even less likely that AG Holder is willing to risk a dustup at Uncle Leons house. However, the O-Team recognizes that with each passing day they retain more ownership of policies both domestic and foreign. So why risk appearing indecisive and weak by changing a policy 180 degrees in less then 48 hours? Call it Risk/Benefit Chicago style. They placate the Left and continue their distractions by flying the specter of the evil Bush era. Cant you just hear Rham now? Its a Twofer...Bayybee!

Posted by: DepotGuy 2009-04-22 10:32

#11 We are getting closer and closer to a banana republic every day (and I ain't talking about the overpriced retail outlet).

If any of the clowns who voted in this disaster are reading this, thank you so very much. Now please go celebrate Earth Day by rendering yourself carbon neutral.

Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie 2009-04-22 10:27

#10 Hmm.... The President isn't leaving himself an exit plan. Maybe that's because he doesn't plan to leave.

Posted by: Richard of Oregon 2009-04-22 10:21

#9 It's pouring water on a defenseless MOOSLIM that Barry cannot tollerate. The slaying of the born and unborn is .... "above his paygrade."

Posted by: Besoeker 2009-04-22 09:51

#8 Legally Killings babies is ok for Obama but pouring water on a terrorist is out of line.

Who's 'moral bearings' are out of whack?

Posted by: airandee 2009-04-22 09:44

#7 What's he gonna charge them with, writing an opinion?

Posted by: Parabellum 2009-04-22 09:42

#6 Yes Gladys, it certainly looks that way, or was there ever any sadness about 9/11 to begin with? With all of the worldwide apolgies being issued of late, could it be as many suspect? Has Jeremiah Wright's "chickens coming home to roost" been the administration's foreign policy theme all along.

Aside from the legal aspects, "lawyering up", potential court battles, etc, of the US Intelligence participants, former administration officials, USDOJ, and others, there is an even more troubling second order effect to all of this madness. We have lost forever, an intelligence collection capability that probably saved many American lives.

Posted by: Besoeker 2009-04-22 07:44

#5 The Rubicon moves ever closer. The fools doing this need to ask one fundamental question about the 'consent of the governed' - who is willing to [literally] die [give the last full measure of devotion] for your retention of power? However, they're beyond the concept in their own little fantasy world. Keep pushing.

Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-04-22 07:35

#4 It seems Sept 11 2001 has faded from people's memories.

Thank you to all who have kept us safe these past 7 years.

Posted by: Gladys 2009-04-22 04:40

#3 ..... marvel at the wonders .....

(these typos are the carmenere talking)

Posted by: Verlaine 2009-04-22 02:22

#2 Absolutely outstanding annotations, Steve. Especially the bit about not understanding the issues. This is a guy who allegedly focused on con law at HLS, and yet talks about "positive rights" lacking in the Constitution. He was totally unimpressive the first time I met him, and my take was sound, it appears. No there there.

Badanov, I share some of your "Bring.It.On" views.

But only if such a catastrophically ill-advised (and still unlikely) move FINALLY motivated members of Dubya's administration to remove the duct-tape and defend/refute/educate? Or others? Are there any career officers sufficiently outraged and shamed by the illegality and analytical buffoonery of select players in the "intelligence community" in their jihad to defend the genocidal despotism of Iraq and its satanic orphans to, uh, actually speak up?

As a general view, I do think we should be looking forward, not back

As a general matter, it's hard to pick which failing of this obviously unfit and inexperienced mediocrity has been most spectacular. But there's little doubt about which stunts have been the most unAmerican and un-presidential: the bizarre, relentless, class-less (and, of course, substantively baseless) bashing of his predecessor. We're so far past "orwellian" and the inability of our current vocabulary to capture the nature of the unfolding spectacle, I don't know how to describe that quote above. Just savor it, remind yourself that THIS IS REALLY HAPPENING, and marvel and the wonders and mysteries of human existence.

Posted by: Verlaine 2009-04-22 02:20

#1 Please do this, Obamnation.

Please set your own administration up for prosecutions when Obama's term ends.

Please do this.

Please, please, please...

Posted by: badanov 2009-04-22 00:05

00:00