Obama's CIA torture exemption 'illegal' : UPDATE!

[tango]

CIA torture exemption 'illegal'

Mr Obama has banned the use of controversial interrogation techniques

US President Barack Obama's decision not to prosecute CIA agents who used torture tactics is a violation of international law, a UN expert says.

The UN special rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, says the US is bound under the UN Convention against Torture to prosecute those who engage in it.

Mr Obama released four "torture memos" outlining harsh interrogation methods sanctioned by the Bush administration.

Mr Nowak has called for an independent review and compensation for victims.

"The United States, like all other states that are part of the UN convention against torture, is committed to conducting criminal investigations of torture and to bringing all persons against whom there is sound evidence to court," Mr Nowak told the Austrian daily Der Standard.

...

Mr Obama on Thursday said he would not prosecute under anti-torture laws CIA personnel who relied in good faith on Bush administration legal opinions issued after the 11 September attacks.

Well this is an interesting development.

I certainly hope and insist that prosecution start at the TOP of the chain of Command.

And perhaps also with the lawyers giving them advice.

Edited April 22, 2009 by tango

[bush_cheney2004]

I certainly hope and insist that prosecution start at the TOP of the chain of Command.

And perhaps also with the lawyers giving them advice.

Not going to happen....US Constitution trumps the UN every time.

[Borg]

Not going to happen....US Constitution trumps the UN every time.

Thank goodness!

Borg

[lit_schaeffer]

It would be difficult to prosecute lawyers for giving legal opinions on torture used by the Bush administration to justify the practice. It would also be difficult to prosecute Bush and Cheney, at least for this particular abomination. I suspect that there are many things done by Bush and Cheney which will go unpunished, simply because there is no perceived benefit to doing so. This is not necessarily a bad thing, although it would be nice to see both Bush and Cheney in prison for vitiating their constitution, killing the citizens they were sworn to protect and generally behaving like cowboys. But if there is no general political will to go after Bush et. al, it won't happen.

[tango]

President Obama opens door to prosecution regarding torture techniques

BY Kenneth R. Bazinet

DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Updated Tuesday, April 21st 2009, 7:31 PM

President Barack Obama speaks to the CIA employees at the George Bush Center for Intelligence. Sachs/Pool

WASHINGTON - The Team Bush brain trust that approved CIA torture techniques faces a roughing-up after President Obama reopened the possibility of investigation - and even prosecution.

Just five days after urging against "recrimination" for the George W. Bush-era torture of terror suspects, President Obama said Attorney General Eric Holder is free to probe the White House higher-ups who authorized the tough treatment.

YES!!

"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, and I don't want to prejudge that," Obama said.

"I think that there are a host of very complicated issues involved there," he added.

Obama's taking the "high" road. YES!!

Edited April 22, 2009 by tango

[Sir Bandelot]

I think Obama has realized that crimes were committed, and he's faced with the choice of suppressing the information (and thereby accepting his own complicity in a crime) or bringing it out in the open to be dealt with by the law. I agree it's his only choice, and should be prosecuted to the full extent. Else there is no real law.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[tango]

I think Obama has realized that crimes were committed, and he's faced with the choice of suppressing the information (and thereby accepting his own complicity in a crime) or bringing it out in the open to be dealt with by the law. I agree it's his only choice, and should be prosecuted to the full extent. Else there is no real law.

I expect the message from the UN had some effect. The Attorney General is responsible for International law too.

I'm impressed by how Obama has handled this.

I don't agree with scapegoating the people on the front line and I see that in his approach, and that gives me hope. Now that it's public, it's up to the Attorney General whether to act, and how can he not with all the attention, especially since the UN was extremely clear.

US President Barack Obama's decision not to prosecute CIA agents who used torture tactics is a violation of international law, a UN expert says.

[KrustyKidd]

Well this is an interesting development.

I certainly hope and insist that prosecution start at the TOP of the chain of Command.

And perhaps also with the lawyers giving them advice.

I hope so and then, we can nail every past president to the wall. Then move onto hundreds of thousands of ex soldiers, CIA agents dating back to whenever.

CIA, KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation, July 1963 Part 1 (pp. 1-60) - Part II (pp. 61-112) - Part III (pp. 113-128)

This 127-page report, classified Secret, was drafted in July 1963 as a comprehensive guide for training interrogators in the art of obtaining intelligence from "resistant sources." KUBARK--a CIA codename for itself--describes the qualifications of a successful interrogator, and reviews the theory of non-coercive and coercive techniques for breaking a prisoner. Some recommendations are very specific. The report recommends, for example, that in choosing an interrogation site "the electric current should be known in advance, so that transformers and other modifying devices will be on hand if needed." Of specific relevance to the current scandal in Iraq is section nine,

At last we can nail that bastard Carter!

Oh, and Clinton for the renditioning of prisoners.

The secret CIA interrogation process became known as "renditioning," Scheuer said, explaining that it included moving prisoners without due legal process to countries without strict human rights protections.

Obama is not going to do shit as the prisons would be overflowing with ex government agents and soldiers who did their duty as per their government's instructions of the time. He just wants to break the cycle is all. And that is good.

However, if another 911 occurs that may, even by a small margin of possibility, could have been prevented by techniques such as those he is standing down, then be prepared for a right wing backlash that may even put him out of power. If he is successful and thwarts attacks then he will have changed the nation and, possibly brought in a new era of peace and cooperation.

Edited April 22, 2009 by KrustyKidd

[sharkman]

President Obama opens door to prosecution regarding torture techniques

BY Kenneth R. Bazinet

DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Updated Tuesday, April 21st 2009, 7:31 PM

President Barack Obama speaks to the CIA employees at the George Bush Center for Intelligence. Sachs/Pool

WASHINGTON - The Team Bush brain trust that approved CIA torture techniques faces a roughing-up after President Obama reopened the possibility of investigation - and even prosecution.

Just five days after urging against "recrimination" for the George W. Bush-era torture of terror suspects, President Obama said Attorney General Eric Holder is free to probe the White House higher-ups who authorized the tough treatment.

YES!!

"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, and I don't want to prejudge that," Obama said.

"I think that there are a host of very complicated issues involved there," he added.

Obama's taking the "high" road. YES!!

Again I repeat what I've said before. If you change the definition of torture after the fact, you can't legally do anything to those who were ordered to operate under the old definition. You can certainly make a good show of it and please your far left base, however.

The problem is this navel gazing will weaken the CIA's efforts, as well as all those who are under the Homeland Security Umbrella.

I hope some of you can make allowances for what I am about to say.

I think that sooner or later, another terrorist attack will occur on U.S. soil. With Obama tying the hands of those trying to defend against this, it could be sooner. He is obviously of the impression that if you open a dialogue with those who are sworn to kill you, they will suddenly change their ways and become open to your good ideas and warm smile.

When this attack occurs, I think most Americans will start to see through Obama because he will wilt, whereas now only about 50% see through him. In the meantime, the soft dictatorship he has(majority in Congress and the Senate) will allow him to make the US unable to fend off these attacks, and may lead to even more as Europe has experienced. He has already begun cutting defense budgets for warships and new fighter jets.

It will no longer matter what definition the US follows for the term 'torture'.

Edited April 22, 2009 by sharkman

[stevoh]

I think that sooner or later, another terrorist attack will occur on U.S. soil. With Obama tying the hands of those trying to defend against this, it could be sooner. He is obviously of the impression that if you open a dialogue with those who are sworn to kill you, they will suddenly change their ways and become open to your good ideas and warm smile.

I don't see Obama's hands as tied. If you attack the US, there will be reprocussions. He is not afraid to take bold steps when necessary, just look at the Somali pirate attack.

If you threaten American lives, he will give the order to shoot back.

[tango]

Obama is not going to do shit as the prisons would be overflowing with ex government agents and soldiers who did their duty as per their government's instructions of the time. He just wants to break the cycle is all. And that is good.

I think you missed the point. It isn't about "soldiers" and "agents", but the higher levels that gave the orders:

President Obama said Attorney General Eric Holder is free to probe the White House higher-ups who authorized the tough treatment.

And that's exactly as it should be, because those receiving the orders should not be scapegoated, as they often are.

[sharkman]

I don't see Obama's hands as tied. If you attack the US, there will be reprocussions. He is not afraid to take bold steps when necessary, just look at the Somali pirate attack.

If you threaten American lives, he will give the order to shoot back.

You misread what I said. I was clearly saying that Obama is tying the hands of the infrastructure that is protecting the US from another attack on US soil. By that I mean the land that the US encompasses and the CIA and Homeland Security agencies that protect from an attack.

This pirate thing is bandits grabbing a private company's ship, not attacking something on US soil and is a far cry from a major bombing of a building, bridge, or stadium.

[Oleg Bach]

America has one sacred policy - Kill to get what you believe you need. Lie to appease all on lookers..Punder till you are so full that you collapse your own economy like a gluttonous pig.

[Sir Bandelot]

For now it seems they are getting more serious about investigating the Bush administration:

'No one is above the law,' Holder says of torture inquiry

Story Highlights

• "We are going to follow the evidence," attorney general says
  
• Holder weighing whether to prosecute Bush officials over interrogations
  
• Interrogators themselves won't be charged, he says
  
• Several investigations into interrogation techniques are under way
  

Interesting.

[bush_cheney2004]

America has one sacred policy - Kill to get what you believe you need. Lie to appease all on lookers..Punder till you are so full that you collapse your own economy like a gluttonous pig.

Then do it all over again when the world whines about their economies shrinking.

[KrustyKidd]

I think you missed the point. It isn't about "soldiers" and "agents", but the higher levels that gave the orders:

President Obama said Attorney General Eric Holder is free to probe the White House higher-ups who authorized the tough treatment.

And that's exactly as it should be, because those receiving the orders should not be scapegoated, as they often are.

When you said that prosecution would start at the top I naturally surmised that you meant that it would then should move downwards onto those who knew torture was wrong and against the Geneva Convention but still, like Nazi War Criminals 'were simply following orders.'

So since Bush and his fellows did not partake in the torture and simply, approved same on the advice of the lawyers, who is going to be prosecuted?

[tango]

When you said that prosecution would start at the top I naturally surmised that you meant that it would then should move downwards onto those who knew torture was wrong and against the Geneva Convention but still, like Nazi War Criminals 'were simply following orders.'

So since Bush and his fellows did not partake in the torture and simply, approved same on the advice of the lawyers, who is going to be prosecuted?

Well, apparently they're going after the lawyers who gave the 'advice' and then I would hope those at the top who gave the orders.

Obama repeated that the agents and soldiers would not be prosecuted. They have to follow orders, and they did. No wrongdoing there. The wrongdoing is the ones who gave the orders.

[KrustyKidd]

The wrongdoing is the ones who gave the orders.

Who had the benefit of legal counsel advising them it was perfectly fine as well as historical virtue going back over a hundred years. The soldiers and agents on the other hand only had access to the Geneva Convention so they should not have followed those orders. They are criminals.

So, when you say it should start at the top, I naturally took that to mean the lawyers and then the agents and soldiers. Seems the only one's innocent here are those who gave the orders as they had faulty advice similar to the lousy intelligence the presence of WMDs were gauged on.

[tango]

Who had the benefit of legal counsel advising them it was perfectly fine as well as historical virtue going back over a hundred years. The soldiers and agents on the other hand only had access to the Geneva Convention so they should not have followed those orders. They are criminals.

So, when you say it should start at the top, I naturally took that to mean the lawyers and then the agents and soldiers. Seems the only one's innocent here are those who gave the orders as they had faulty advice similar to the lousy intelligence the presence of WMDs were gauged on.

Well I guess we'll have to wait and see. I hope they nail the lawyers and top command.

[KrustyKidd]

Well I guess we'll have to wait and see. I hope they nail the lawyers and top command.

Why not those actually criminally responsible? Do you have BDS?

[bush_cheney2004]

Why not those actually criminally responsible? Do you have BDS?

Yes...they're still pissed that President Bush was never impeached. I guess Condi Rice will have to do instead!

[waldo]

So, when you say it should start at the top, I naturally took that to mean the lawyers and then the agents and soldiers. Seems the only one's innocent here are those who gave the orders as they had faulty advice similar to the lousy intelligence the presence of WMDs were gauged on.

which presumes that the legal opinions offered by the Office of Legal Counsel weren't crafted to align with a predetermined torture agenda... legal opinions orchestrated by, oh... say the master puppeteer Cheney - for example. The same Cheney who has resurfaced to "play up" the gains realized from said torture... to negatively attack Obama for allowing the release of the OLC 'torture memos'.

dissenting legal opinion existed and was ignored/purged... oh my, who ever could imagine that legal opinion could be forthcoming to cover the asses of, as you say, "those who gave the orders".

The OLC "torture memos": thoughts from a dissenter

since you're going to play nostalgic with WMDs and faulty advice (cue the Shrub stating he received "darn good intelligence"), let's just call this "darn good legal opinion"!

[KrustyKidd]

which presumes that the legal opinions offered by the Office of Legal Counsel weren't crafted to align with a predetermined torture agenda... legal opinions orchestrated by, oh... say the master puppeteer Cheney - for example. The same Cheney who has resurfaced to "play up" the gains realized from said torture... to negatively attack Obama for allowing the release of the OLC 'torture memos'.

dissenting legal opinion existed and was ignored/purged... oh my, who ever could imagine that legal opinion could be forthcoming to cover the asses of, as you say, "those who gave the orders".

The OLC "torture memos": thoughts from a dissenter

since you're going to play nostalgic with WMDs and faulty advice (cue the Shrub stating he received "darn good intelligence"), let's just call this "darn good legal opinion"!

Doesn't presume. He was given advice saying it was legal otherwise he would not have done what all of his predecessors did and, it is up to the prosecution to prove otherwise. BTW, you seem to have a moderate case of BDS going on there.

[waldo]

Doesn't presume. He was given advice saying it was legal otherwise he would not have done what all of his predecessors did and, it is up to the prosecution to prove otherwise. BTW, you seem to have a moderate case of BDS going on there.

and you can not say - with certainty - that no influence/pressure (from "where ever"), directed the nature of that legal opinion to align with the "torture agenda". And yes - if it does move forward - the onus is on the subcommittee/prosecution.

you seem quick to attach BDS based upon a single post... BTW, you seem to have a (more than) moderate case of Bush Apologist Syndrome going on there.

[KrustyKidd]

and you can not say - with certainty - that no influence/pressure (from "where ever"), directed the nature of that legal opinion to align with the "torture agenda". And yes - if it does move forward - the onus is on the subcommittee/prosecution.

Until they are brought to trial and, if the prosecution fails they are innocent.

you seem quick to attach BDS based upon a single post... BTW, you seem to have a (more than) moderate case of Bush Apologist Syndrome going on there.

No, just reason. You are the one who calls people names because you are emotional about it. That is what BDS is, an emotional rather than rational outlet for immature people. People are innocent until proven guilty in the west. You on the other hand by your verbal insults towards Bush and his administration have already tried and convicted them when in reality, they will most likely never see the inside of a courtroom.

That is BDS.