4um: CIA Officials Won't Face Charges For Waterboarding (Eric Holder)

Title: CIA Officials Won't Face Charges For Waterboarding (Eric Holder)
Source: NPR
URL Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103177115
Published: Apr 16, 2009
Author: The Associated Press
Post Date: 2009-04-16 20:11:55 by Deasy
Keywords: None
Views: 277
Comments: 29

Read The Memos

Aug. 1, 2002: from Jay Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA
May 10, 2005: from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.
May 10, 2005: from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.
May 30, 2005: from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.

NPR.org, April 16, 2009 · President Obama absolved the CIA from prosecution for harsh, painful interrogation of terror suspects Thursday, even as his administration released Bush-era memos graphically detailing — and authorizing — such grim tactics as slamming detainees against walls, waterboarding them and keeping them naked and cold for long periods.

Human rights groups and many Obama officials have condemned such methods as torture. Bush officials have vigorously disagreed.

In releasing the documents, the most comprehensive accounting yet of interrogation methods that were among the Bush administration's most closely guarded secrets, Obama said he wanted to move beyond "a dark and painful chapter in our history."

Past and present CIA officials had unsuccessfully pressed for more parts of the four legal memos to be kept secret, and some critics argued the release would make the United States less safe.

Michael Hayden, who led the CIA under George W. Bush, said CIA officers will now be more timid and allies will be more reluctant to share sensitive intelligence.

"If you want an intelligence service to work for you, they always work on the edge. That's just where they work," Hayden said. Now, he argued, foreign partners will be less likely to cooperate with the CIA because the release shows they "can't keep anything secret."

On the other side, human rights advocates argued that Obama should not have assured the CIA that officers who conducted interrogations would not be prosecuted if they used methods authorized by Bush lawyers in the memos.

Obama disagreed, saying in a statement, "Nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past."

The Bush administration memos describe the tough interrogation methods used against 28 terror suspects, the fullest and now complete government accounting of the techniques. They range from waterboarding — controlled drowning — to using a plastic neck collar to slam detainees into walls.

Other methods were more psychological than violent. One technique approved but never used involved putting a detainee who had shown a fear of insects into a box filled with caterpillars.

The documents also offer justification for using the tough tactics.

A May 30, 2005, memo says that before the harsher methods were used on top al-Qaida detainee Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he refused to answer questions about pending plots against the United States.

"Soon, you will know," he told them, according to the memo.

It says the interrogations later extracted details of a plot called the "second wave" to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into a building in Los Angeles.

Terror plots that were disrupted, the memos say, include the alleged effort by Jose Padilla to detonate a "dirty bomb" spreading nuclear radiation.

Even as they exposed new details of the interrogation program, Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder offered the first definitive assurance that the CIA officials who were involved are in the clear, as long as their actions were in line with the legal advice at the time.

Holder went further, telling the CIA the government would provide free legal representation to its employees in any legal proceeding or congressional investigation related to the program and would repay any financial judgment.

"It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department," Holder said.

Obama said in his statement and a separate letter sent directly to CIA employees that the nation must protect their identity "as vigilantly as they protect our security."

Current CIA Director Leon Panetta said in a message to his employees: "CIA responded, as duty requires."

Some parts of the memos were blacked out, and Panetta had pushed for more redactions, according to a government official who declined to be named because he was not authorized to release the information.

The CIA has acknowledged using waterboarding on three high-level terror detainees in 2002 and 2003, with the authorization of the White House and the Justice Department. Hayden said waterboarding has not been used since, but some human rights groups have urged Obama to hold CIA employees accountable for what they, and many Obama officials, say was torture.

The memos produced by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in 2002 and 2005 were released to meet a court-approved deadline in a lawsuit against the government in New York by the American Civil Liberties Union.

"It's impossible not to be shocked by the contents of these memos," said ACLU lawyer Jameel Jaffer. "The memos should never have been written, but we're pleased the new administration has made them public."

In addition to detailing individual techniques, one memo also specifically authorized a method for combining multiple methods, a practice human rights advocates argue crosses the line into torture even if any individual methods does not.

The methods authorized in the memos include keeping detainees naked, keeping them in painful standing positions and keeping their cells cold for long periods of time. Other techniques include depriving them of solid food and even beating and kicking them. Sleep deprivation, prolonged shackling and threats to a detainee's family were also used.

Interrogators were told not to allow a prisoner's body temperature or food intake to fall below a certain level, because either could cause permanent damage, said senior administration officials.

The Obama administration last month released nine legal memos from the Bush administration. It probably will release more as the ACLU lawsuit proceeds, the officials said.

The lawsuit has sought to use the Freedom of Information Act to shed light on the treatment of prisoners — though the Bush administration eventually abandoned many of the legal conclusions put forth in the memos and the Obama administration has gone further to actively dismantle much of President Bush's anti-terror program.

Obama has ordered the CIA's secret overseas prisons known as "black sites" closed and has ended "extraordinary renditions" of terrorism suspects to other countries if there is any reason to believe those countries would torture them. He has also restricted CIA questioning to methods and protocols approved for use by the U.S. military until a complete review of the program is conducted.

Also on Thursday, Holder formally revoked every legal opinion or memo issued during Bush's presidency that justified interrogation programs.

The documents have been the subject of a long, fierce debate inside and outside government over how much should be revealed about the previous administration's approach.

In his statement, Obama said he was reassured about the potential national security implications by the fact that much of the information contained had already been widely publicized — including some of it by Bush himself — and by the fact that the program no longer exists as it did.

Withholding the memos, Obama argued, would only serve to deny facts already in the public domain.

"This could contribute to an inaccurate accounting of the past, and fuel erroneous and inflammatory assumptions about actions taken by the United States," the president said.

Those assurances are not likely to inoculate Obama against criticism from conservatives. Last month, former Vice President Dick Cheney said that Obama's decisions to revoke Bush-era terrorist detainee policies will "raise the risk to the American people of another attack."

Related NPR Stories

April 15, 2009
Critics Skeptical Of Obama's 'Openness' Vow

#1. To: christine, Jethro Tull, Refinersfire, lodwick, PSUSA, IndieTX, farmfriend, Itistoolate, Artisan, noone222, HAPPY2BME-4UM, Old Friend, Critter (#0)

Recall that Obama's cabinet made the release of these documents possible. The planned release has faced strong bipartisan and intelligence professional criticism. It's a plus for Obama.

WTF good is releasing any info if it doesn't lead to prosecutions from the top to the bottom? It is all bullshit.

It's good because last year the people in power believed this was a good idea. Now the newly elected ones are backing away from it. It may not matter that much, just as you say.

Exactly right; the bum Obummer just gave the Bush cabal a green light so his own administration can continue the torture he claimed he detested. Politicians lie and oafs follow.

My problem with it is that the Obummer lovers swore he was the real deal. Most people with brains, however, knew otherwise. This proves, once again, that Obummer is just another puppet. No one will pay for their crimes, and we will continue on our march to ruination.

Geroge Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove would ultimately be charged if they were.

The first scenario is, Obama tries to bring the crims to justice and all of the PNACers, powerful Zionists and their supporters spread far and wide throughout the fabric of America pull together to see that it does not happen. This will include not only the political but religious influences, CIA and MOSSAD intrigue and all that entails.

The end result is America is destroyed and the people blame "that goddam Mooslim deep cover" and are easily convinced (through the skillful and repeated use of propaganda) that this was his mission all along.

The other scenario is, Obama concentrates on implementing the socialist agenda and the Bushbots and so called conservatives dig in their heels and do their worst to bring about a revolution to avoid being taxed, and nothing but the complete transfer of the income tax to wage earners only (no corporate or capital gains taxed at all-hey, Bush promised and we'd have it now if not for "that goddamed piece of paper!"{the 22nd amendment to the Constitution}) will stop the inevitable disruption of the economy that they can cause.

Because the military industrial complex also owns the media (i.e. General Electric) they will not allow America to dismantle the production of billion dollar weapons systems, so, implementing the socialist agenda and spending the peace dividend on people is simply out of the question. This can mean anything from inescapable foreign wars (allies attacked) to domestic dirty bombs and/or worldwide pandemic of virulent disease and blamed on an enemy that can only be fought with their weapons. Whatever it takes because they ain't taking no for an answer, either.

BUT, because Israel's war mongering and their need for state of the art weapons to rule the world (not to mention those we supply to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.,) cannot be shortchanged option one and the exposure and dismantling of the Zionist criminal cartel is as unacceptable to the MIC/media masters as the second.

Is there a third option that would be acceptable to any of the powerful forces that can and will destroy America if Obama dares tell them NO?

Sadly, there is only one partially acceptable solution and that's damned iffy. Only some of the population will survive, and there's simply no way to accurately predict if what's left will bear any resemblance to the past or present form of govt or even bear the name, "USA."

Either way you, I and others will blame Obama and to a fair degree he will deserve it. But no matter what he does or ever intended to do the future is not now nor ever will be within his power to shape, direct or control, at least in any way that would restore freedoms lost, productivity sabotaged, pride intentionally strangled and discarded to break the ruling white majority that poses a threat (and could actually rule the world peacefully if we weren't enslaved by traitors in our midst) as long as it remains intact.

In short, if there were any established historical precedents (Oh My God! The Horror!) we'd know that the prognosis is grim and our chances of surviving as the nation you and I wish to preserve are so slim that only an honest-to-by-G_d-miracle could change the course ahead. And, anything short of that will result in the destruction of America and probably the slaughter of all whites (and others but I don't care about them) who have the misfortune to be isolated from their own when surrounded by "the others".

That is almost as funny as your absurd belief that our leaders are actually lizards from outer space. Keep it up space cadet. Your always good for a good laugh.

I actually don't blame Obama. He does what politicians do, and that is to lie. It's their nature. I do blame, however, the supporters of politicians, especially those who at one time exhibited an awareness of the scheme we live in, yet chose to ignore it in favor of hope. Such naivety is best left for the young and not those in care of the young. Out of all the options you outline, I think the last is the most reasonable. Given the radical demographic changes this nation has undergone, whites will be left with the choice of either joining together or relying on a tight circle of friends and family. I come to this conclusion because I know of no nation, throughout history, where such a cultural experiment has been successful. The next time we gather for a round of peaceful demonstrations, the government will open the gates of hell and we will be greeted by supporters of change. Then, we either stand and fight, or retreat for what will be at best another year or two of peaceful self delusion.

Obama is a figurehead. The power belongs to the people who selected and funded him. The moment he strays from their agenda is the day he'll be replaced.

Bush Authorized the Use of Insects on Prisoners, Banging Prisoners' Heads Against the Wall

Torture memos just declassified today show that the Bush administration authorized placing prisoners in confinement boxes with insects and "walling", which means banging their heads against the wall. online.wsj.com/article/SB123975168816518691.html

Remember that all Bush administration officials - including Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, and Justice department lawyers - who authorized, promoted or even failed to stop the torture program are guilty of war crimes. georgewashington.blogspot...f-1996-bush-rumsfeld.html

Actually, Obama's poll on popularity remain high and I don't see anyone wanting to 'crawl under rocks.'

I do not support not prosecuting, and pressure should be brought to bear to investigate then adjudicate these torturers. It is a cop-out not to do so, and I support the effort to address torture in such a way the resulting mess would make such policies much harder to put in place in the future.

I always expected to see disagreements with the Obama Administration and always knew there would be points of contention with things they do.

I also am not surprised at this ruling by the administration on this and expected it. They have erred and should have this made clear to them.

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

I see a country where all zoo and lab monkeys, chimps and great apes are released and nature allowed to take its course so there will be fresh (if not slightly irradiated and/or diseased) bush meat for the killing and "new Americans" will feel right at home here.

I know where the power is and I also know who sold their souls to play with the fire.

How is this an error? An error implies they don't know what they are doing. How is it that they don't know what they are doing when WE know what they are doing?

Popularity polls are tools used by the politicians to promote people and agendas that are usually anti-American. Often they commission them themselves or they are complied by their ally, the MSM. I, and others like me, are never polled nor are people with cell phones.

The number one obstacle to a first strike is that the very people we'd expect to take part would ask themselves this:

If we commence hostilities against the rogue traitors in govt this week, then what will I not have next week?"

Obviously millions of people who get govt checks will not help, and in fact I think we can count on them to serve as informants who cheerfully monitor and report our movements to the enemy in real time.

But, others will hesitate and possibly withdraw their support if their fishing or casino vacation plans will be disrupted, and still more won't want to live in a world where RED LOBSTER isn't open and serving garlic shrimp in artery clogging simulated butter.

It may be hard to accept but most Americans would freeze and fail to muster if war meant no coffee, gasoline, TV, etc., for an indeterminate period.

We are just too comfort-oriented and to many if not most restoring the constitution is as abstract a concept as restoring Jesus to the throne. It may sound wonderful in the course of lofty discussions but when the time comes to sacrifice and it's obvious that in the short run no immediate benefits will accrue and in fact very real hardships will result it would be a hard sell indeed.

On the plus side, for years I've been hearing oldsters in my barber shop say, "I don't care what happens to America after I die. I want my social security check and fuck the rest of you!"

The good news is that it now appears that many of those selfish shits will indeed be alive for the main event and they will suffer along with their own kids and G kids whose well being they apparently don't care about.

If I live to see the collapse I'm going to do my best to turn the screws to those old bastards who so arrogantly announced their indifference to America's posterity. Perhaps I'll make up signs and petitions (and make it appear that every home received it when in fact only a few well chosen assholes will) that demand "Turn all social security recipients into SOYLENT GREEN and seize their homes when they die!"

And, each letter or petition will name that specific homeowner (again appearing that its in all that were widely distributed) and quoting him:

Gabby Smith of 333 Elm St said "I don't care what happens to America after I die!"

Well, my fellow Americans, if he has no responsibility to us then just what do we owe him? He's been collecting SS for 35 years (of course I'll distort the truth and add 20 years for the full inflammatory effect-HD) so his home, his savings and YES even his burial plot should be taken for the public good and his remains used to make SOYLENT GREEN which we can use to feed the third world as part of our humanitarian survival campaign for AFRICA and ASIA, as well as supplying bait to Alaskan crabbers in the Bering Sea...."