Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
It's Official: Obama Will Not Prosecute CIA Torturers
Obama strikes a deal with CIA torturers not to prosecute them. This is a victory for Bush’s lawyers who justified torture.
The Washington Post also reported:
A file photo of a guard leaning on a fencepost as a Guantanamo detainee jogs inside the exercise yard at Camp 5 detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. US President Barack Obama has assured CIA agents involved in tough terror interrogations they will not be prosecuted as he released graphic memos detailing methods approved by the Bush White House. (AFP/Pool/File/Brennan Linsley)
For the first time, officials said that they would provide legal representation at no cost to CIA employees in international tribunals or U.S. congressional inquiries into alleged torture. They also said they would indemnify agency workers against any possible financial judgments.
“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,” Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.
The ACLU was quick to shoot back at Obama’s announcement. “President Obama’s assertion that there should not be prosecutions of government officials who may have committed crimes before a thorough investigation has been carried out is simply untenable. Enforcing the nation’s laws should not be a political decision,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU.
This comes as the White House released the three “Bradbury” memos, drafted in 2005, detailing CIA ‘enhanced interrogation’ techniques and torture. The administration has also reportedly released a 2002 memo written by Justice Department lawyer John Yoo and signed by Jay Bybee. The New York Times described that memo as “a legal authorization for a laundry list of proposed C.I.A. interrogation techniques.”
The Bradbury memos are named for Steven Bradbury, the former acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under Bush.
The decision apparently came “after a tense internal debate,” culminating with a “final round of deliberations” Wednesday night over the release, which was fiercely opposed by the CIA, which said their release would threaten national security. The administration faced a deadline of today for the release of the documents under a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. The Bybee memo was put on the table April 2 as part of a negotiation between the ACLU and the White House after the Justice Department asked for a delay of two weeks to make a decision on releasing the Bradbury memos.
“These memos provide yet more incontrovertible evidence that Bush administration officials at the highest level of government authorized and gave legal blessings to acts of torture that violate domestic and international law,” said Romero.
There has been much speculation in recent days that the White House may release redacted versions of the memos, which sparked protests from the ACLU and other civil liberties groups and activists. Refusing to release the memos was also opposed by some administration officials, including Attorney General Holder, who reportedly supported a more complete release. In releasing the documents, Obama cited “exceptional circumstances” compelling him to release them and a desire to correct “erroneous and inflammatory assumptions” about US actions.
The White House released the memos with redactions, but apparently not on a scale some in the administration—and certainly the CIA—had originally wanted. The release, therefore, appears to be a victory. But, the apparent deal not to prosecute CIA torturers makes it a very sour victory. As the ACLU’s Romero said, “There can be no more excuses for putting off criminal investigations of officials who authorized torture, lawyers who justified it and interrogators who broke the law. No one is above the law, and the law must be equally enforced. Accountability is necessary for any functioning democracy and for restoring America’s reputation at home and abroad.”
144 Comments so far
Show AllWell, * ***** **** **** **** ********** ******* a *** ** ******** memos.
Could happen this way, I've dealt with enough C.I.A. documents on JFK assassination to know that the "letter of the law" can be satisfied with documents so deeply "redacted" that they reveal virtually nothing about their contents. But let's wait and see whether the Redactor General, Mr. Panetta, prevailed in these internal debates.
Have state DA's prosecute Obama for aiding and abetting. Then Harvard should strip him of his law degree.
Something will have to be done because this will not go away. Some one in DC will need to grow a pair and take on the special interests.
How bout if the public did?
Is it to soon to impeach Obama?
But the memos can still be used to prosecute the attorneys who wrote them.
Sioux Rose
CTRL: Clever!
Thus past and present administrations are exempt from international war crimes.
Ok, then I support all acts of so called terrorism again the USA and it's accomplices in murdering Muslims all over the world. A curse on America for decimating the Holy land of Islam!
"carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice..."
Ah, I see. They were only following orders...
We do what we're told.
I took my Obama sticker off some time ago. We are in some sort of fractured universe. Obama change is a bad bad bad Joke on the world. If these people can not be prosicuted who can 16 year old kids smoking a joint. My goodness this really shows off the legal system of the usa, ranks right up there with the health care,,Best in the world the jester said!!! And the sheep still follow.
Who expected anything else? They are all cut from the same cloth of immorality and deception. Karma will have it's way. We the People are irrelevant.
angryoldman,
No we the people are not irrelevant. We are responsible and complicit just like the good Germans of WWII.
We knew and know what these administrations are doing and have done.
The fault is ours.
I can only agree, but our opinions are irrelevant to the echelons of power. Are we complicit? Yes. BUT, only to the extent that we are not willing to rise in a passive or agressive revolution. WE the People DID NOT institute these policies of torture and genocide and are not actively involved. I'm sure most of us are open for suggestions. Go right ahead. If ever the people were ready for revolutionary leadership, it's certainly NOW.
You are spot on. If you are not outraged and trying to do something positive about people being tortured in our name, then you are complicit, an accessory to the fact; and part of the problem. Please support the ACLU; Amesty International or whatever works for you.
Already do...thanks...
Yes, me too. I am on your side, friend.
another important org to support is tassc international....'torture abolition & survivors support coalition'... they're in d.c. and work tirelessly to end torture...founded by sister dianna ortiz who was kidnapped/tortured in '89 in guatemala. check them out at www.tassc.org and if the bailout have-mores haven't sucked your bank account dry, send them a check!!!... i know sr ortiz attempted to influence hillary clinton during b.c.'s administration on torture issues to little avail, but hope more will come of her and tassc's efforts now that people are (at least a teensy bit) more educated on the issues. torture is reprehensible under any circumstances, but we live in a culture where mass entertainment includes such things as the blurring away of the line between interrogation and torture in such series as 'the shield' etc...and in a world where impunity reigns throughout the corridors of power. i keep waiting for obama to find his moral compass and NAVIGATE BY IT....perhaps among his team of advisors on the torture issue dianna ortiz should have a place at the table???????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's called, "You lie, and I'll swear to it." Very common in governments and other large corporations.
Smoke screens and more smoke screens. They have so damned many 'crisis' going on here, you know they're taking advantage of every single moment of it. So speak up, those of you who know. What the hell is really going on here?
So let the places that really do have the "rule of law" hang the bastards (if they get 'em on their soil).
Yesterdays question was: Would these memos be released?
Today's news: Secret Interrogation Memos to Be Released.... (Apparently with very little redaction....But a little can go a long way...)
"But, the apparent deal not to prosecute CIA torturers makes it a very sour victory."
The skillful use of blunt tools again. You don't get everything you wish for....
Deals, deals, deals! Whatever happened to the rule of law? Whatever happened to empathy? Whatever happened to decency and consideration? If you are well placed, apparently you can slaughter and torture with impunity, then strike a deal that if you release what you did, to the public, you are granted a pardon and safe passage.
Many years ago, one was expected to take responsibility for his or her actions. There were consequences for breaking the law or doing something stupid.
Now, there are no consequences. If you break the law and are amongst the elite, you walk. If you do something stupid, it is not your fault, it is somebody else's and furthermore, you can sue them!
As Porky Pig used to say at the end of the cartoon, "Ttttthat's all folks!"
I logged in to comment on an article from a writer at the N.Y. Times that was replaced by this one. I scanned it quickly. I do not see that this article is superior to the one from the Times. That author provided very good resources to how many good lawyers left the Bush DOJ due to insurmountable stupidity on the Administrations stance and inability to realize they were being had by Yoo, that Bradbury was the only one who would carry forward with Gonzales, a third rate mind if ever there was one in DOJ.
But I'll go with the flow on this simply because Scahill is correct. It is a sour deal. But not so sour as the Pelosi refusal to impeach and subsequent lack of criminal arrests.
Dogleg: yes and another important thing left out of this "replacement" article was the information in the original one about the "internal debate" on their release and the insistence in particular of Obama's CIA Director appointee Leon Panetta that the documents be heavily redacted to "protect" CIA operations. As Bill Clinton's former COS Panetta must have had some experience in making "deals" and may have been appointed CIA director for that purpose, if indeed the deal went down that is described by Scahill. So hey, Common Dreams, where did you put the original article? The public needs to see it.
Jarhead
Obama should be impeached for his role in Bushs torture games, and take Eric Holder with him.
Link to released memos:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20090416_memos.pdf
zmann:
I found this same link just a few minutes ago and have taken a very cursory look at these and here's a "first report." There are 38 pages in this file and it's hard for me to navigate on my computer, others may have more luck, I'll look again when I have more time. The redactions seem to be rather minimal and seem to relate to identities of CIA operatives with a very frank and indiscreet description of specific torture tactics and lawyers' briefs on their legality. We'll no doubt hear more of these. They certainly could be documentary evidence for the prosecution and/or impeachment of....somebody. But then who knows what "deals" have cut off these actions?
I heard around the office a couple hours ago that the deal was to protect the CIA agents, but the people in the administration who oversaw and ordered the torture may still be prosecuted...sounds like a good tradeoff to me.
The trade-off would be if the henchmen were given immunity for testifying. This sounds like unconditional get out of jail free cards with no incentive for the thugs to cooperate.
There could always be a truth commission for them in the future, which would have the same effect.
It would be a shameful and unsettling international precedent if the U.S. government fails to prosecute those responsible for the decisions to torture. Governments that invoke the "punto final" or an end to investigation and prosecution, in the interest of national harmony, have been strongly criticized and the decision to grant immunity (read: impunity) had to be reversed in several Latin American countries.
Here is an article by Tom Burghardt really brings it home.
"Obama Administration Endorses Continued Spying on Americans
Justice Department Moves to Squash NSA Spying Suits"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13155
My guess is that we have all the chances of a snowball in a blast furnace.
If they were too dumb to realize that decisions made by the Bush Department of Justice were wrong, they don't belong in the CIA.
Does anybody remember this from retired General Taguba in June 2008:
"there is no longer any doubt as to whether the [Bush] administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."
I guess we have Obama's answer on this question.
Not only do innocent people remain in American gulags without the chance to have their day in court, new prisoners are now being shipped to Bagram rather than Cuba,
and the Democrats are announcing that the government will not do its job, namely enforcing the law, but
Obama is announcing that he will:
"provide legal representation at no cost to CIA employees" lest they suffer some inconvenience by being brought up on war crimes charges by other governments or groups of victims who are trying to fill the American legal vacuum.
I'm glad you didn't waste your vote on those unelectable candidates, progressive America, way to go!
Change WHO can believe in??
Strange how the deal to not prosecute defeats the purpose of releasing the documents.
Wasn't the whole point of getting these memos released to find proper basis (in them) for prosecution? - It was for very many, for sure.
This just in off the news ticker:
The Nixon administration has just agreed to handover the audiotapes featuring senior white house officials planning the break-in at the Watergate hotel...
in return for assurances that the perpetrators will not be prosecuted for the burglary.
…In other news, prominent soothsayers predict that in the year 2345 Americans will finally get their act together and coalesce around a so called “third party” enabling them to turf out the bums that have held sway in congress for centuries.
So the Spanish Attorney general won't seek indictment of those who gave the orders to torture because they didn't carry out the torture personally, and Obama won't prosecute the CIA who carried out the torture personally because they were just following orders.
BLEEbababaBLEEbababoooopeedoopeerararararaaaaaaaaa......... gooogeeegoooogeeewoowoowoo........
Let's start a pool. How many years . . . months . . . before this all happens again?
Our town's right-wing-nut cop murderer should use exactly the same defense - you people are dwelling in the past! Ge over it!
This desision sets the precedent for the permanent institutionalization of torture by the US government. Whenever it is expiedient to torture, this decision will be dragged back up. Franco, Pinochet, Hitler, or Stalin would fully agree with this desision - and this is not hyperbole.
Obama's characterization of these CIA Thugs as dedicated and patriotic makes me want to vomit.
Didn't you hear, the Nazi torturers shouldn't have been prosecuted. As Obama said, we don't want dedicated professionals having to look over their shoulder.
Are you worried about losing your job? Afraid you won't be able to feed your family? Frightened about your future prospects?
If you answered 'Yes' to any of these questions, you should consider a career in torture. It's the only area where the President himself guarantees your job security.
Meet new people, get them talking, and stay employed.
Torture. It's the American Way.
Concerning Obama and Bush, I wonder what threat Poppa made to Obama and family, as what not to do???
It would appear as if the Obama administration has decided to put the onus on Congress to move forward with prosecuting Bush error torture. It was cynical realpolitik inspired move where the consideration of an intelligence organ threatening revolt if punished outweighed rightful punishment of those whom committed crimes ordered by the Executive branch, Nuremberg Principle notwithstanding. A vain hope is that this merely a time saving "rope a dope" move done in a time of economic travail where the "priorities" are different. I am not holding my breath for a nano-second though.
Hmmm...if the "onus" of prosecutions could be put on congress, why didn't they do it years ago?
Isn't it the job of the justice department to enforce the law? Or is there another "presidential finding" or "executive order" or a unknown provision of the "patriot act" that makes the executives role in prosecuting criminals contingent on political whims or the weather in Milwaukee?
Exactly, Obama just retroactively justified the 9/11 attacks. We wouldn't want dedicated jehadis to be looking over their shoulders now would we. That would be "looking back" not forward.
“[I]t is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties ((torture and murder)) relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution,” President Obama said in a statement released today.
So why did we execute ordinary Germans at Nuremberg who used the same defense: they were only following orders, and no doubt relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Third Reich?