Detainee abuse to be examined yet again

[BigRob]

DO anything??????

The ONLY thing the CIA is supposed to DO is gather-intelligence!!!!!!​

That is not the sole mandate of the CIA.

Whenever the CIA does what (your friends at) Corporate America wants....


.......we ALWAYS end-up paying-for-it, LATER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So now corporate America runs the CIA in your view?

There are consequences for every action that we take internationally, but that does not mean that those actions are not the right move at the time they were taken.

 

[BigRob]

C.I.A. Abuse Cases Detailed in Report on Detainees



The AG is just doing his job, of course, despite objections by both parties, including the president:




Getting the information was not easy, nor do we have all of the facts even now:



If nothing illegal was sanctioned, then why the secrecy?

Upon further review of this "review" the scope of the review is only for those who did not "act in good faith within the scope of legal guidance."

What that means is that those who acting in accordance with Bush administration guidelines are free from prosecution, and those who went beyond the guidelines are the targets.

Therefore, if this "review" does yield any results, it will not be that the Bush administration authorized anything that was done, but rather a few people who went beyond the established law.

 

[PLC1]

Upon further review of this "review" the scope of the review is only for those who did not "act in good faith within the scope of legal guidance."

What that means is that those who acting in accordance with Bush administration guidelines are free from prosecution, and those who went beyond the guidelines are the targets.

Therefore, if this "review" does yield any results, it will not be that the Bush administration authorized anything that was done, but rather a few people who went beyond the established law.

Established law, or established guidelines from the administration?

 

[BigRob]

Established law, or established guidelines from the administration?

Well we could probably debate forever on this one, but I would argue that the guidelines established by the Bush Administration were in line with established law, and Holder more or less giving immunity to those who followed it seems to be at least a tacit agreement with that statement from the Obama Administration.

Outside of that, the Bush Administration, when in their own probes discovered people acting outside of the guidelines, turned them over to DOJ officials anyway, so really, this "review" is nothing new in terms of anything practical.

I do agree with the statements that this is politically motivated, but if the "review" goes down the way they have stated it will, it will have no bearing on anything the Bush Admin did, and it will mostly be a bone to the left wing (which is not happy about Holder's comments on this one) that Obama is in fact "doing something" about the perceived actions of the Bush administration. So really, it is win-win. Obama can throw a bone to the left without actually doing a real probe into anything.

 

[PLC1]

Well we could probably debate forever on this one, but I would argue that the guidelines established by the Bush Administration were in line with established law, and Holder more or less giving immunity to those who followed it seems to be at least a tacit agreement with that statement from the Obama Administration.

Outside of that, the Bush Administration, when in their own probes discovered people acting outside of the guidelines, turned them over to DOJ officials anyway, so really, this "review" is nothing new in terms of anything practical.

I do agree with the statements that this is politically motivated, but if the "review" goes down the way they have stated it will, it will have no bearing on anything the Bush Admin did, and it will mostly be a bone to the left wing (which is not happy about Holder's comments on this one) that Obama is in fact "doing something" about the perceived actions of the Bush administration. So really, it is win-win. Obama can throw a bone to the left without actually doing a real probe into anything.

Without opening the debate yet again of whether or not the Bush Administration allowed anything that was not in accordance with law, I think you're right.

It is politically motivated and it won't amount to much in the end, especially if the only ones prosecuted are individuals who operated outside of the CIA guidelines, i.e., the ones guilty of the really horrible torture and killing.

Why, then, is the CIA so opposed to prosecuting those individuals? They make it sound as if it is the CIA itself that is being prosecuted.

 

[BigRob]

Without opening the debate yet again of whether or not the Bush Administration allowed anything that was not in accordance with law, I think you're right.

It is politically motivated and it won't amount to much in the end, especially if the only ones prosecuted are individuals who operated outside of the CIA guidelines, i.e., the ones guilty of the really horrible torture and killing.

Why, then, is the CIA so opposed to prosecuting those individuals? They make it sound as if it is the CIA itself that is being prosecuted.

I am not sure that the CIA actually opposes prosecuting those individuals who went outside the established bounds. I think what they do oppose is the constant investigation (this is not the first investigation into this very issue) on agents that in the past were more or less already cleared.

I think it creates a stigma about the organization and they will probably lose some talented people who are just fed up with the whole process, and lose some capability as they again have the question hanging over their heads of "If I do this, is the next President going to charge me with a crime."

 

[PLC1]

Here's more on this story:

Cheney said in a statement released Monday that "President Obama's decision to allow" prosecutor John H. Durham -- a Republican appointed during the Bush administration to look into the CIA's destruction of interrogation videotapes -- to examine the legality of other interrogation-related activities was "a reminder, if any were needed" of why some Americans question the Obama administration's ability to protect the nation.

A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, called Cheney's comments "off base" and took umbrage at the idea that Obama had personally allowed Durham to expand his inquiry. "This was not something the White House allowed, this was something the AG decided," the official said, referring to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.

Emphasis added.

 

[BigRob]

Here's more on this story:


Emphasis added.

I have serious doubts that they White House did not at least give tacit approval of this.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Re: **NEWS FLASH** former AG Gonzales supports the probe!!!

Gonzales Counters Cheney, Backs Holder CIA Probe


Wednesday, September 2, 2009 12:19 PM

By: Ben Conery (Contact) and Joseph Weber (Contact) Article Font Size

Former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, who was criticized widely for politicizing the Justice Department and providing legal justifications for detainee abuse in the Bush administration, praised as an independent legal decision his successor's probe into whether CIA agents tortured terrorist suspects.
In stark contrast to former Vice President Dick Cheney's vigorous criticisms during the weekend of Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s reopening of investigations of CIA employees, Mr. Gonzales said Tuesday that Mr. Holder was correct to pay no heed to President Obama's often-stated desire to look forward on the issue and instead to make a legal decision based on the facts.
"As chief prosecutor of the United States, he should make the decision on his own, based on the facts, then inform the White House," Mr. Gonzales said Tuesday on The Washington Times' "America's Morning News" radio show.
Bush administration attorneys clearly defined what interrogation techniques were legal, and those who went beyond the rules should be investigated, despite any chilling effect it might have on future intelligence-gathering, Mr. Gonzales said.
"We worked very hard to establish ground rules and parameters about how to deal with terrorists," he said. "And if people go beyond that, I think it is legitimate to question and examine that conduct to ensure people are held accountable for their actions, even if it's action in prosecuting the war on terror."
Mr. Gonzales made his remarks just two days after Mr. Cheney, who has taken the lead in defending the conduct of the war on terrorism, blasted Mr. Holder's decision to name federal prosecutor John Durham to conduct the review as "an outrageous political act" that "offends the hell out of me."
"It's clearly a political move; I mean, there's no other rationale for why they're doing this," Mr. Cheney said on "Fox News Sunday," in comments echoed on Sunday's talk shows by two Republican senators -- John McCain of Arizona and Orrin G. Hatch of Utah.
Attempts to reach Mr. Cheney for comment Tuesday were unsuccessful.

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/gonzalez_holder_probe/2009/09/02/255492.html?s=al&promo_code=87EE-1
*****************************

OMG...now how's that for a 'ROYAL KICK IN THE ARSE'...dear, dear HERR CHENEY...LMAO
The former AG Gonzales {who some have said} did your biding and fired those State appointed AG's because you directed him too; has come out in favor of this investigation...HMMM. PAY BACKS are a real bite in the arse aren't they, or as they say: "what goes around comes around"

 

[BigRob]

Re: **NEWS FLASH** former AG Gonzales supports the probe!!!

Gonzales Counters Cheney, Backs Holder CIA Probe


Wednesday, September 2, 2009 12:19 PM

By: Ben Conery (Contact) and Joseph Weber (Contact) Article Font Size

Former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, who was criticized widely for politicizing the Justice Department and providing legal justifications for detainee abuse in the Bush administration, praised as an independent legal decision his successor's probe into whether CIA agents tortured terrorist suspects.
In stark contrast to former Vice President Dick Cheney's vigorous criticisms during the weekend of Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s reopening of investigations of CIA employees, Mr. Gonzales said Tuesday that Mr. Holder was correct to pay no heed to President Obama's often-stated desire to look forward on the issue and instead to make a legal decision based on the facts.
"As chief prosecutor of the United States, he should make the decision on his own, based on the facts, then inform the White House," Mr. Gonzales said Tuesday on The Washington Times' "America's Morning News" radio show.
Bush administration attorneys clearly defined what interrogation techniques were legal, and those who went beyond the rules should be investigated, despite any chilling effect it might have on future intelligence-gathering, Mr. Gonzales said.
"We worked very hard to establish ground rules and parameters about how to deal with terrorists," he said. "And if people go beyond that, I think it is legitimate to question and examine that conduct to ensure people are held accountable for their actions, even if it's action in prosecuting the war on terror."
Mr. Gonzales made his remarks just two days after Mr. Cheney, who has taken the lead in defending the conduct of the war on terrorism, blasted Mr. Holder's decision to name federal prosecutor John Durham to conduct the review as "an outrageous political act" that "offends the hell out of me."
"It's clearly a political move; I mean, there's no other rationale for why they're doing this," Mr. Cheney said on "Fox News Sunday," in comments echoed on Sunday's talk shows by two Republican senators -- John McCain of Arizona and Orrin G. Hatch of Utah.
Attempts to reach Mr. Cheney for comment Tuesday were unsuccessful.

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/gonzalez_holder_probe/2009/09/02/255492.html?s=al&promo_code=87EE-1
*****************************

OMG...now how's that for a 'ROYAL KICK IN THE ARSE'...dear, dear HERR CHENEY...LMAO
The former AG Gonzales {who some have said} did your biding and fired those State appointed AG's because you directed him too; has come out in favor of this investigation...HMMM. PAY BACKS are a real bite in the arse aren't they, or as they say: "what goes around comes around"

Well, let us remember that the Bush DOJ carried out an almost identical probe. It is not surprising that people, especially a former AG, would support going after those who might have violated the law.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Re: **NEWS FLASH** former AG Gonzales supports the probe!!!

Well, let us remember that the Bush DOJ carried out an almost identical probe. It is not surprising that people, especially a former AG, would support going after those who might have violated the law.

But {not to split fine hairs...} isn't that the point...aren't they/didn't they have the same information to look at {maybe yes/maybe no}
I don't think this will be a waste of our tax dollars...but that's just me being suspicious about 'HERR CHENEY's' ability to 'NOT DO THE RIGHT THING'

 

[BigRob]

Re: **NEWS FLASH** former AG Gonzales supports the probe!!!

But {not to split fine hairs...} isn't that the point...aren't they/didn't they have the same information to look at {maybe yes/maybe no}
I don't think this will be a waste of our tax dollars...but that's just me being suspicious about 'HERR CHENEY's' ability to 'NOT DO THE RIGHT THING'

Well, Holder stated that he had "new information", so I would imagine something else has come to his attention.

I do not think it is a waste of tax dollars either, in fact, on this issue, I think Cheney is wrong. As long as the probe remains within its established mandate, which is to investigate only actions taken outside of the Bush administrations guidelines, then it will be fine.

If it turns into anything else, I think it will be a serious problem with the potential to result in what Cheney is worried about, but if it does not, I think that it is not a huge problem.