CIA Agents Were Not Following "Orders"

[kpete]

CIA Agents Were Not Following "Orders"
by: Daniel De Groot
Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 16:11

Given what Paul has been discussing here today, I want to make a correction to the general debate about whether to prosecute the CIA operatives who directly participated in torturing detainees. The CIA is a civilian agency, and that means its employees are not subject to prosecution for refusing to obey instructions (not "orders") from superiors in the agency. They can quit, like anyone of conscience when asked to do something in conflict with their personal ethics.

.....the implications of CIA's civilian status. I believe it only strengthens the case for prosecution.

The CIA was created by the National Security Act of 1947. It replaced the (too-blandly named) wartime military Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and was deliberately concieved of as a civilian, non-law enforcement agency. From the act:

(d) HEAD OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY.
- In the Director's capacity as head of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Director shall -
(1) collect intelligence through human sources and by other appropriate means, except that the Agency shall have no police, subpoena, or law enforcement powers or internal security functions;

The point of all this is that for 60 years, Congress has been very deliberate in trying to maintain a strong level of civilian control over the process and activities of intelligence gathering. This is a vital wall of seperation, due to the great power an agency like CIA can wield. I'm sure the example of the KGB and the domestic abuses of other totalitarian intelligence agencies was a large part of Congress' reasoning in keeping CIA in the realm of dirty civies. This isn't a minor matter, as from a pragmatic standpoint of intelligence gathering there is much to be said for consolidating all intelligence gathering into the military or FBI. FBI is technically civilian, but the powers of domestic federal law enforcement are dangerous enough without adding spying to the mix.

All of this was to both protect society from CIA, and to protect the CIA. CIA agents cannot be "ordered" to do anything in the legal sense, since they are mere civilian employees of a federal agency. They can quit and should do so when instructed to do things contrary to the Laws of War and numerous international treaties. These aren't scared 18 year old kids being intimidated into following Lt Calley into atrocity, nor do they go through months of indoctrination into a culture of rigid discipline as is done in the military. They are independent moral agents, and should not get any kind of pass for this.


more:
http://www.openleft.com/diary/12912/cia-agents-were-not-following-orders

[Solly Mack]

1. K&R

[Warren Stupidity]

2. besides which, we hanged people for war crimes who were

just following orders.

[Mist]

3. I actually hadn't thought about this--technically being a civilian agency. Thanks for posting. nt

[RufusTFirefly]

4. Also, some of the atrocities were committed BEFORE the Bybee memo

Here's what Scott Horton said on Democracy Now!

...there is a very strange factual issue here. President Obama says that we shouldn’t prosecute them because they relied on these memos. But a factual review is going to show that the CIA was using these techniques from April 2002, and these memos were commissioned and written, the first of them, in August 2002, so it’s quite clear, in fact, that CIA agents were out in the field doing these things, not relying on these memos, with the memos not even being in contemplation at that time. So, this argument is a fallacy.

[mod mom]

7. A minor detail

:sarcasm:

[RufusTFirefly]

8. Yup. Old news. Let's move on, shall we?

:sarcasm:

[chill_wind]

10. AND many of them began purchasing personal legal insurance

(revealed in 2006) because they anticipated the possibility of legal consequences.

[peacebird]

25. actually high level govvies have taken out personal legal insurance for years. I knew

top level govvies at NRL who did so to protect themselves. For a while the govt was suggesting it to them.

[chill_wind]

48. That makes sense, But WAPO had a story in some closer context:

Worried CIA Officers Buy Legal Insurance
Plans Fund Defense In Anti-Terror Cases

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 11, 2006; A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091001286_pf.html

[FedUp_Queer]

43. Moving forward

If I ever get a speeding ticket, can I use the "let's move forward" defense? That does beg the question, since the perpetrators of crimes ALL commit them in the past, exactly whom DO we prosecute?

[merh]

5. K&R

[malaise]

6. Excellent post

K & R

[nichomachus]

9. The Bush Crime Family and the CIA are inextricable

they have been tightly connected since the beginnings of the OSS while Poppy was at Yale, the place that created most of the early spooks.

[doctor jazz]

11. True, but the 'Nuremberg defense' might actually sway a jury more than if it were a military case.

Or maybe not.

[bleever]

12. K&R.

So many myths to be dispelled.

[doodadem]

13. I have a question

The husband and I were discussing the whole torture/non-prosecution situation this morning. He's saying that its not Obama's job to investigate or prosecute torture from the last administration--that it has to come from Congress. Is that the case, and if so, why aren't they all over this?

[azul]

14. Congress has been rather clueless as to its duties and responsibilities

and is pretty hopelessly pinned down by special interests (and NSA?). The president can't investigate his predecessor because it would be unbecoming, although the justice dept should be making the case.

And that leaves... Spain?

[Bluenorthwest]

26. Where in the Constitution

is the 'unbecoming' clause? That, to me, is laughable. Unbecoming? Like a bright green sweater is unbecoming?

[JDPriestly]

46. If Obama does not prosecute these crimes, what country is to stand

up for human rights? We will have utterly no credibility on that count. Failure to prosecute these crimes will set off an avalanche of human suffering and torture. Who is to stand up for the rights of those who are tortured?

Obama is a coward if he does not prosecute these crimes.

[Fumesucker]

22. The Justice Dept is part of the Executive..

Congress does have an obligation to investigate but so does the Justice Dept..

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

15. A Thought

perhaps Obama has given a pass to these agents instead of outing those left in the field, unlike the Bush White House.

It is not the same thing as Plame but surely some of the agents who inflicted the torture were known or have associates that could be recognized in the "arena."

Public prosecutions of CIA agents who may have been part of operations ongoing that do not include interrogations, could damage and put at risk both life and security.


Personally speaking I believe anyone who works in any govt. agency, be that the Office of Homeland Security or the CIA, FBI, or outside contractors thereof, that practices the use of torture should be prosecuted and sentenced to a prison term.

[grahamhgreen]

36. The issue here is that if you intend to prosecute those who actually gave the orders (Bush, et al) ,

you need to be able to use the threat of prosecution as a bargaining chip with those lower down in the food chain in order to get them to testify against their "superiors".

When you pre-emptively grant immunity, you lessen the ability to get at the truth.

In a sense, it's an obstruction of justice.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

41. Thanks so much for

clearing that up.

So sorry my thought was wrong.

[riderinthestorm]

50. This is a discussion board. Not the "thought police".

Everything is up for grabs at DU.

:hi:

[Norrin Radd]

16. kr

[bvar22]

17. Hey man....take your time....relax....

This is the time for "reflection, not retribution".

Never mind that the Statute of Limitations on the worst War Crimes is going to expire in a year.
Chill out.....freeze the game.

[Demeter]

19. I Don't Think There Are Any Statutes of Limitations On War Crimes

otherwise, the hunt for Nazis wouldn't still be ongoing.

[bvar22]

23. There are:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5484154&mesg_id=5484154

[merh]

35. How does the statute of limitations run out?

Edit - I didn't follow the discussion, sorry.

I don't think the international law has statutes of limitations.

The "conspiracy" to conceal the crimes statute of limitation begins to run after bushco left office, the current administration and the public did not know of the crime until the memos released, the information made available when they took office.

[leftstreet]

18. K&R

[dorkulon]

20. What does this have to do with Susan Boyle?

:shrug:

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TomClash]

24. Doesn't matter

The Nuremberg Defense didn't work for civilians or military personnel at Nuremberg or Tokyo, so this really doesn't matter.

[Swede Atlanta]

27. Great post...........

I can understand that the CIA and the entire intelligence community had failed utterly to uncover the 9-11 plot and stop it.* As a result they reacted, with or without legal guidance, by taking measures to not allow this to happen again. That still doesn't excuse breaking federal law and violating treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory.

If I ask my attorney if an action is legal or illegal and he/she tells me it is perfectly legal and it turns out that it was illegal, I can't claim a defense of reliance on legal advice. So neither should those in the CIA or other intelligence branches that committed these crimes.

But as much as I think there should be accountability by those who performed these acts in our name I am much more interested in investigating and where appropriate prosecuting those that gave counsel to break federal and international law. The investigation must also go after those who as a matter of policy pushed for these practices.

*I guess one question here is did the CIA really fail in their mission? They may have failed to get exact details of the 9-11 plot but they warned Chimpy that Al-Qaeda was determined to attack and appeared to be focused on civilian aircraft as a means. Chimpy read or had read to him that briefing and then with a big chuckle turned to Condi and said, "how about coming down to watch me clear some brush...hee hee hee." Utter failure.

[grahamhgreen]

37. Your assuming that 9-11 was actually the work of people who were not in business with the Bush's

[maryf]

28. Raw Story article says its against International Law

Anyone can feel free to make this an OP! I found no dupes...(Rec for this OP)

http://rawstory.com/08/blog/2009/04/18/un-torture-investigator-obama-has-broken-international-law/#

UN torture investigator: Obama has broken International law

By Raw Story

Published: April 18, 2009
Updated 1 day ago



UN official suggests US courts can still try accused torturers

The United Nation’s top torture investigator has suggested it is illegal under International law for President Barack Obama to announce that the United States government has no intention of prosecuting low-level CIA officers who carried out torture sanctioned by the Bush Administration.

President Barack Obama’s release on Thursday of four Bush administration memos sanctioning torture has been widely praised. However, word that government will go so far as to offer a fully-paid legal defense for agents who applied torture techniques to terror war prisoners has triggered loud criticism.

“Like all other contracting states to the UN convention against torture, the US has committed to conduct criminal investigations of torture and to bring all persons to court against whom there is sound evidence,” Manfred Nowak, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on torture, told Austrian weekly paper Der Standard.

<snip>


“President Obama deserves credit for rejecting arguments that official disclosure of these ‘enhanced’ interrogation techniques would set a dangerous precedent,” opined the LA Times on Saturday. “But he continues to hedge about whether the CIA might once again be freed from the standards of conduct imposed on interrogators for the military. Indignation over these shameful documents should convince the president that a double standard for interrogation is intolerable.”

[grahamhgreen]

38. What is an OP - this is a big story...

[maryf]

39. Basically a post here, a thread

I should have said start a thread, I hadn't finished my coffee yet!! Go for it, I'll K&R!!

[grahamhgreen]

42. I did post it but

I found a similar article in late breaking news.

Posted here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3837533&mesg_id=3838677

and here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5489669&mesg_id=5489669

This would seem to indicate that to by not prosecuting Obama is acting criminally "amounts to a breach of international law"...

[maryf]

47. Thanks so much for that!! nt

[ThomWV]

29. This is an outstanding post and I'm pleased to be able to K&R it

[Hubert Flottz]

30. I could not agree more...

What these people did was wrong...PERIOD!

[pleah]

31. K&R

[hfojvt]

32. they can quit or they can refuse and get fired

How many of us are willing to put our $60,000 a year jobs, or our careers on the line? Lynndie England has already gone to prison. My own preference is not for proscuting the people who were following instructions, but to move the accountability up the chain. At some point there is a cabinet level person or President or Veep who started the ball rolling, or would lose nothing by attempting to stop it aka Archibald Cox.

[formercia]

33. First day on the job at CIA

they sit all the new employees in a room and go over mostly mundane administrative subjects.
One thing that stood out in my mind is that they specifically tell the employees that they can object to any order or request that is or appears illegal and it is their duty to report it to the proper authorities.

[freemarketer6]

34. Excellent post, kpete. Posts like this is why I like coming to this

place so much.

[Enthusiast]

44. It might be simplistic but

fascists torture. K&R

[Fendius]

45. Excellent referance, lets push this....

[zipplewrath]

49. They asked for permission

These guys weren't carrying out the orders of superiors, they were asking the justice department for permission to do these things. The got it. The "I was just doing what I was told" defense doesn't work here. They asked for permission because they knew these things were questionable.

We keep getting told we don't want to prosecute because we don't want people in the future to "hold back" or to "question themselves". But that's exactly what I do want. What I don't want is exactly what we are getting. I don't want guys getting this circular logic system set up where "it's not illegal because he said so, and he knows it's legal because he said so". I want people wondering what a jury of their peers will decide. And I want a jury of peers to decide this, not Barack Obama.

[riderinthestorm]

51. Kick!

"Error - you can only recommend threads that have been started within the past 24 hours".

This is too important to let slip down the page.