Obama is right: it would be folly to prosecute the CIA operatives involved

[amborin]

this would cause chaos within the CIA and alienate many, many rank and file, many of whom were simply middle level operatives following orders from above

with nuclear-powered Pakistan teetering on the verge of collapse and/or total talibanization (along with countless other intelligence problems worldwide), this is NOT the time to wreak havoc with the CIA

the real culprits were Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.......and while we should go after them, if we could, it would be a tough and divisive slog, with no guarantee of success

we have too many other critical problems to deal with, not least of which is leading the world in the direction of a sustainable, green economy

by prosecuting CIA operatives, we'd be turning CIA operative against CIA operative; alienating all of them; losing many to resignations, etc.....leaving ourselves with seriously compromised intelligence

[vaberella]

1. I love people with reason...yet...it's lost on so many here!!

Thanks for this.

[panader0]

2. I heard one of the pundits say that today

But, really, the CIA is not our friend. Intelligence? I don't think so. The CIA has been on the wrong side of things nearly every time.

[vaberella]

3. No they aren't. Hence the reason we need to tread lightly and Pres O did just that.

While still maintaining the integrity of our constitution.

[kid a]

4. now there's a post worth a K & R...Thanks!!!

[cascadiance]

5. He needs to indicate though more clearly that he's going after those who WERE responsible...

... for taking the CIA down the path of violating our laws, etc. for nefarious aims. These people NEED to be punished, or we will have a nation where people will lose respect for the rule of law if it doesn't apply to those at the top.

And if he wants the U.S. to take a leadership role in many areas, which I think starting off he's well equipped to do, he needs to have the rest of the world's respect, and won't have it if we can't follow our own and international laws. Other nations won't trust making agreements with us any more.

[DeepBlueC]

8. ripeness is all

[Solomon]

11. Sure. Telegraph all your punches.

[amborin]

14. isn't it clear to the world that Bush and crew were the perps?

We have a new administration---a new start---and the world is not blaming Obama for the evils of his predecessor. Nor does the world blame ordinary Americans (although 2004 did not help us there) for the crimes committed by Bush and crew.

We have too many problems on our plate to expect Obama or anyone to go back and address all the evils that occurred.

[cascadiance]

22. Obama himself doesn't have to do it. He has the whole government to help delegate this task!

And it IS essential for future generations to make sure that we prosecute and punish criminals that had operated with impunity.

As Mike Malloy noted last night, there were times in the past where our government had people working in torturing those by people working in the CIA, etc.

Heck, my father might have even worked with some of the remnants of Stan Sheinbsaum's "Vietnam Project" of the late 50's (where the CIA infiltrated MSU's South Vietnam project to help train officials there to torture the Viet Cong then) when we all were in Bangkok in the 60's when he was working for MSU there.

But the big difference Malloy noted is that with these torture memos, it was the first time that our government tried to CHANGE the law in the executive branch to make it LEGAL to conduct these activities. If we choose to ignore these breaches of our legal processes and constitutional law, then we are throwing away our system of laws and the rule of law. That is HUGE folks! We can't sacrifice something like that due to expediency (whether or not many of us dislike those in the Bush administration or not). And it DOESN'T have to occupy all or necessarily even much of Obama's time either, given his other crisises that he faces which I will also agree deserve priority for attention too.

It is about having the executive branch or some element of that starting and moving forward with the investigation of these crimes, not "moving forward" and ignoring them, whatever the reason might be for doing so. I don't buy any of the stated reasons (or perhaps even unstated reasons) for not pursuing justice here!

We were campaigned to by Obama to have a government of transparency, and one that preserved the tenets of our constitution and set of laws, not one that continues to support the breakdown of such.

[amborin]

28. i suggest you read this legal article, for starters:

<http://www.columbia.edu/cu/siwps/publication_files/snyder/Trials%20and%20Errors%20-%20Snyder.pdf>

[cascadiance]

32. I'll read this more later... But it sounds from looking at the intro that they've already given up

... fighting to ensure that our constitutional democracy should be defended. Saying that because others haven't been able to win similar battles, we shouldn't even try. Perhaps George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc. should have had that attitude then too. It was hard to fight against the British empire in those days too.

And if we wait too long, some folks might get out the guillotines again like the French did. I don't think we want to wait that long...

[islandgirl808]

6. very good post...thanks

the hysteria from some comments here (and other sites) have been interesting to say the least.

(if i could rec this post, i would!)

[glowing]

7. BS.. the CIA should be shut down if they really need to ask the DOJ to

issue them special instructions so that they can torture.. Notice, they tortured first, and then had the DOJ issue them the instructions around the law. The CIA is always rearing its ugly head whenever a coup is occuring or training Taliban or behind secret prisons, renditions, and toture. I think the CIA needs to go away. Start over with an agency that is collecting information only; not imparting our version of American strong-armed democracy around the world.

[amborin]

18. are you blaming the operatives for the

orders they receive from above?

of course, the cia has been involved in many nasty and dastardly covert operations.....but there are many, many middle level operatives that are bright, decent, well-intentioned, etc....

[glowing]

23. Yes, everyone has an option of not joining. If no one would work there,

there would be no CIA.. but humans have always shown a very evil side. Look at all the disgusting wars and horrors men/ women have inflicted on one another over its existence...

[Politicalboi]

25. Your right there about joining

Unlike in Hitler's time that if you said "No I won't do it" they would either shoot you right there or your family or both. I actually have more sympathy for the Nazi's than these guys. It was life or death for some.

[DeepBlueC]

9. ...

:thumbsup:

[Hieronymus]

10. Sadly, that's the argument the Nazis gave .. I was only following orders.

[kid a]

13. that was a joke right?

[Hieronymus]

21. No

[Captain Hilts]

12. So, why didn't people believe Pelosi about impeachment when she didn't have the numbers to do it?

She's not Obama.

[TheKentuckian]

15. I totally believed her. I didn't like the "off the table" message but as for not

actually going for it, that was the only sound move.

[Captain Hilts]

19. I agree completely. nt

[GeorgeGist]

16. History rejected the Nuremburg defense ...

as nonsense.

[scheming daemons]

20. Actually, post WWII was the ONLY time it wasn't validly used

And it was a case of a winning side in a war deciding what the rules would be.


Police officers EVERY SINGLE DAY in this country are not prosecuted for things you and I would consider crimes if it can be proven they were following official Police Procedure at the time.

[Kaleva]

27. Not so. See the Finn War Crimes Trials

Only the highest level civilian politicians were put on trial. Members of the military and lower level politicians were not charged with any crime.

[nipinbud]

17. How can you charge torturers without charging those who gave the orders?

[Politicalboi]

24. Let them squeal

For their freedom. Tell us the truth and we will let you go. Or maybe we should waterboard them to get the "infromation".

[Kajsa]

26. Go after the top tier guys,

the ones who sanctioned torture,

Bush, Cheney et al.

[TheKentuckian]

29. I'm not sure I even get the focus on anyone else

Constant harping on Nuremberg as the template is off base to me as well. A) I don't think it was good law then or now. What option did the Nazi foot soldier have but to obey orders? Take a bullet to the head? Take a turn in the ovens? Maybe a little murder and torture of Mum, Pops, the wife, and kids?
B) It is convoluted to think we can just override US law. I think those that really are pushing this are hanging onto the thread of treaty law and hoping a jury will allow a treaty to take precedence over our own legal system. These were not rouges going on their own path but acting under orders of the administration, orders confirmed as legal by the DoJ. I think we have to accept that these folks had no higher legal authority to go to. This should teach us not to put declared criminals in charge and to remove them if they declare they are going down that path. This wasn't a secret. We all knew and if we feel so strongly then we have the Constitutional authority and responsibility to revolt, which we certainly didn't. We are no better than the operatives as a nation.

I understand the deep need to nip this (and certainly that) in the bud but going after underlings with limited or no options is overzealous at the least. Ignoring the pressure of a government's thumb is more vengeful than just, in my opinion. I don't like no win law. You do the right thing and take a bullet or do the wrong thing and dangle on a rope. Not that the CIA operatives were NECESSARILY in that position but the same deal for all practical purposes.

You only go after underlings to get to the ones calling the shots, in this case especially that's not needed. The honchos have been bragging about their crimes on TV for all to see and left fingerprints all over the place. If we get them then that will be probably the biggest victory for the concept of justice in the history of this country and those following orders will be insignificant.

[Two Americas]

30. dangerous idea there

"They were only following orders" is not a defense.

No problems are more important, or could ever be solved, by ignoring criminality.

People should at least be honest. If the standard is this - rich and powerful people can evade being held accountable, poor and powerless people have no excuse and we should throw the book at them - then why not just be honest about that?


...

[amborin]

31. huh?

did you read what you wrote?

you wrote:

"if the standard is this--rich and powerful people can evade being held accountable, poor and
powerless people have no excuse and we should throw the book at them--then why not just be honest about that?"


what you wrote is the opposite of what i, and many, are/were suggesting

the argument is that, if we're going after anyone, it should be those at the top, not the rank and file....

but going after those at the top would be a long and divisive slog, when we have many more critical problems to confront

[Two Americas]

33. right

My answer stands.

[Two Americas]

34. a little more detail

I only had a minute to post yesterday. Here is a longer answer.

First, those cloaked in the power of the state - acting as agents for the state - are not "the little guy."

Secondly, CIA people are civilians, they are not acting under military orders. "I was only following orders" is not a defense in any case.

By the way, I reject the argument that all of us are capable of being torturers, so therefore we should not judge them too harshly. There are always examples of people who take a stand. The fact that most may not have the courage to do so does not excuse those who fail to do so.

"If we are going after anyone?" Who is this "we?" Are you identifying with the rulers? IS there some question as to whether or not people should be prosecuted for engaging in torture? Are we really debating about this?

Again, there is no such thing as "more critical problems to confront" than this.

Why would prosecuting criminals be "divisive," and why would that be a consideration, or why how long of a "slog" it might entail be a consideration?

The only problem with going after the little guys is when that is used to shield the big guys.


...

[yardwork]

35. I remember when people said the same after Watergate and after Iran-Contra

which is how Cheney and Rumsfeld ended up in Bush's administration.

I used to think that "moving on" was the right approach. Having lived to see the sorry results, I have changed my mind. Prosecute and hold war-crimes tribunals. There is no other way to clean out the rot.