Investigations of CIA interrogators

[eisely]

I had forgotten that our Department of Justice had initiated investigations of CIA operatives involved in interrogations of terrorist detainees. Since everybody from Obama on down is now crowing about the success of the Bin Laden mission, that relied on information obtained in some of these interrogations, isn't it time for Attorney General Holder to call a halt to these investigations?

[Beavah]

Of course not.

 

If they broke both US and international law, they should be tried and, if convicted, punished.

 

The attorney general's job, and the rest of the executive's, is to enforce the law.

 

Failing to enforce the law puts US citizens and service members at greater risk, and serves to give aid and comfort to our enemies.

 

B

 

[JoeBob]

Beavah - Let's put your answer in perspective.

 

Seal Team Six broke Pakistani law when they illegally dischared a firearm inside the territorial limits of Abbottabad.

Everyone in their chain of command, up to the president, is guilty of aiding and abbetting murder.

Those video helment feeds that the president watched as his cronies double tapped the elderly infirm victim? Those tapes and photos are evidence and we want to see them now!

You should file an FOA request.

 

Those CIA interogators? They're guilty of conspiring to get answers...

[Beavah]

Nice try, JoeBob, but nope.

 

Da folks who participated in the raid on Abbottabad were military and CIA operatives engaged in combat operations consistent with congressional authorization, the UCMJ, and U.S. law and policy. OBL and that compound were a legitimate command-and-control target, and yeh don't apply the same standards to members of the armed services engaged in combat operations that yeh do to the civilian police force in the U.S. The fact that bin Laden was unarmed might be relevant if he was shot while being arrested by NYPD in Manhattan. Da only thing that mattered in combat was that he had not surrendered.

 

By contrast, torture of captives is a clear violation of U.S. law, both da civil law that governs the CIA and the UCMJ. As it should be. And da participants in those activities all knew that, which is why they tried to set up legal fictions and excuses like doin' it outside of the country, and why they hid and destroyed the tapes.

 

They should be prosecuted, and if convicted, should serve the maximum. Personally, given the amount of damage they did to the country in our struggle against terrorism, there's a part of me that wishes we could hang 'em for treason. But da duty of the executive branch is clear, eh? They swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and that demands that these folks be brought to justice.

 

Now, do I think that President Obama takes his oath seriously enough to see this through? Nope. I'd like to be surprised, but I think both he and Mr. Holder will put political expediency ahead of honor and duty.

 

That doesn't change what's right.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[nldscout]

you know Beav,

 

The polite scouter part of me is going to answer you and say that what these people did, they did under legal orders and therefore are exempt from prosecution.

 

The nasty, retired military side of me, who has been to places where the average american would not want to ever go repeatedly, will not comment because it would be totally unscoutlike to say what I think of your comments.

[JoeBob]

nldscout: Huaah!

 

Beavah: Either we are at war with terrorists, or we're not. If the wartime exemption on assasination applies to Obama, it applies to interogation. If the questioners are guilty, so is the Prez. Which is it?

 

"White House and CIA lawyers believe that the intelligence "finding" is constitutional because the ban on political assassination does not apply to wartime. They also contend that the prohibition does not preclude the United States taking action against terrorists."

 

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-11-04/justice/us.assassination.policy_1_assassination-prohibition-cia-lawyers?_s=PM:LAW

 

A little consistency would be appreciated.

 

If you hang the patriots who defend the country, you'll soon have no patriots.

 

But I think there might be some in the US who don't want the country defended.

[CalicoPenn]

"Since everybody from Obama on down is now crowing about the success of the Bin Laden mission, that relied on information obtained in some of these interrogations"

 

This presumes, of course, that information obtained in the illegal torture cases was used - and the only ones making that claim are pundits who are making wild speculations as to where the intelligence actually came from. Since those illegal torture cases happened long before this intelligence was gathered, then the liklihood that this operation relied on information obtained in those interrogations is pretty much zero.

 

"The polite scouter part of me is going to answer you and say that what these people did, they did under legal orders and therefore are exempt from prosecution."

 

If you are talking about the operation that got Bin Laden, then yes.

 

If, however, you are talking about the illegal torture interrogations, then nope - it's pretty much settled that you can't give a legal order to do something illegal. Any order to do something illegal is illegitimate and can never be legal.

[Beavah]

The polite scouter part of me is going to answer you and say that what these people did, they did under legal orders and therefore are exempt from prosecution.

 

Yah, nld, not sure what you're talkin' about.

 

If you are talkin' about the crew that shot Bin Laden, that was JoeBob not me that was arguing they did something wrong. I fully supported their actions.

 

If you are talkin' about the CIA operatives who tortured captives, then

 

1) they are civilian, not military, so your bit about "orders" makes no sense.

2) even if they were military, the order would be illegal, and following it would also be illegal in da UCMJ.

3) there is no "wartime exemption" on mistreatment of prisoners as JoeBob implies. We call mistreatment of prisoners in wartime "War Crimes" and we prosecute them with vigor.

 

That's why da folks who proudly wear the uniform of the United States and use da expression "Huaah!" would never condone such acts. They believe in honor, and an honorable man does not torture a captive. To do so is an act of cowardice, that undermines the values of the United States, puts our fellow Americans in uniform at risk around the world, encourages the enemy to fight rather than surrender, and provides an enormous propaganda victory to the enemy.

 

It is against the law. It is contrary to our values. It gives aid and comfort to the enemy. It is fundamentally an act of treason. It should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Spiney Norman]

"That's why da folks who proudly wear the uniform of the United States and use da expression "Huaah!" would never condone such acts. They believe in honor, and an honorable man does not torture a captive. To do so is an act of cowardice, that undermines the values of the United States, puts our fellow Americans in uniform at risk around the world, encourages the enemy to fight rather than surrender, and provides an enormous propaganda victory to the enemy."

 

"It is against the law. It is contrary to our values. It gives aid and comfort to the enemy. It is fundamentally an act of treason. It should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

 

Here! Here!

[JoeBob]

Let me get this straight:

 

You're saying that it is okay to drop into a foreign country without their permission, kick-in the bedroom door in the dead of night and shoot someone.

 

But it is not okay to use fraternity pranks to pressure that same person to answer questions?

 

UnHuh.

 

Beavah said: "That's why da folks who proudly wear the uniform of the United States and use da expression "Huaah!" would never condone such acts. They believe in honor, and an honorable man does not torture a captive. To do so is an act of cowardice, that undermines the values of the United States, puts our fellow Americans in uniform at risk around the world, encourages the enemy to fight rather than surrender, and provides an enormous propaganda victory to the enemy."

Stercus Tauri. You don't know who you are talking to.

 

 

[NealOnWheels]

"It is against the law." - That is very debateable.

 

"It is contrary to our values." - Maybe. But it could be argued that not using such methods would be contrary to our values.

 

"It gives aid and comfort to the enemy." - I don't really see how this is the case. It may embolden our enemies but it certainly does not give them aid and comfort.

 

"It is fundamentally an act of treason." - And how is this so?

 

"It should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law." - only if something illegal occured.

 

[OldGreyEagle]

I may be mixing some metaphors, but hey thats me

 

William Tecumseh Sherman famously said "war is hell", he went on to say a lot more about it, and not in a good way. The gist is, that war is never nice, never glorious and always ugly. As a society we strive very hard not to engage in war (well I hope) and we only go to war when there is no other solution. Having said that, there is only one way to fight a war, all out, pedal to the metal and full speed ahead.

 

I had thought we learned from Viet Nam that there is no such thing as a limited war and everytime we try it, its a disaster. War is brutal business and to be succesful, you have to be brutal. You kill who needs to be killed before they kill you. It seems simple enough why do we have to keep "rediscovering it" oh yeah, those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it

 

We got Bin Laden, we move on

 

Oh yeah ,

 

JoeBob, as Mayor Shinn once told his daughter Zaneeta, watch your phraseology!

)(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[JoeBob]

OGE: Did you have to Google it, or do you know the Latin?

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Never question an ex-seminarian, especially a ROman Catholic one, if he knows Latin, leastwise not form my era...

 

 

Now, as to why Beavah should know who he is talking to, he has a right to his opinion regardless of who he is talking too and if it changes based on who he is talking to, then he is not the Beavah he and I think he is

[nldscout]

I will tell you exactly what I am talking about.

 

Those interrogators used means that were approved in a presidential finding, they gather valuable information that have saved soldiers lives. If you beleive otherwise then you are as bad as the terrorist.

 

I work on a military base with soldiers that have, are and will deploy over there. I have myself been to some of the worse armpits in the world during my 26 years I served.

 

I don't give a damn about some stinking lowlife terrorist life. If killing 100 of them saves one servicemans life then so friggin be it. If what you call torture saves lives then good. Go join the bleeding hearts somewhere else.

 

But don't preach to me about how we should have been nice to them, when I have watched my friends come home in pieces, minus arms and legs or just plain dead. The men and woman I work with are scheduled to leave for there again soon, some for the 4th or 5th time.

 

So do you think I care that the simulated drowning of some scumbag? NOT ON YOUR DAMN LIFE!