Justice ramps up CIA interrogation-tapes probe

Jan 2, 2008
2-Jan-2008

IF you work hard you find some day you’ll have a job like mine.

Why did people work hard on technical things? So you and me could be easy kills in a post technical age.

As I sat on the holiday weekend I wanted to forecast life and vocations for the next 10 years. During the 20th century many dreamers spent full time hours on the future to one day realize a trend and capitalize on the idea.

The frozen water guy made out years ago with ice delivery. The bottled water guy makes out during stocking during flood season. Each and every idea that a great nation with disposable income hits on creates a house in the new world.

The nation grew tired of new houses. New houses mean new neighbors for an established country.

Many countries pay certain citizens to be lords of the society. Paul McCartney a sir from England received a stipend to be an English Lord and he is ostensibly to spend on English purposes.

Hitler loved Aryans and paid many to sit at home, eat and make love Germanly. The Swedes felt one hundred percent of Sweden should be Swedish lord and sit around making love Swedishly (Swedely groan).

The Jew never had a chance at this game and sits wondering what all these good looking well dressed people do one day and disappear the next. If they get caught the jig is up and the Jew in government has to take away their home and car key.

Those from foreign lands in our land live on subsidies. The may someone purchase something debate should be a laughing matter but it is not because superiors in the home state must decide on matching the purchase for their lords on land (spies).

Should a country rely on lords and lording exclusively the society must provide something to soldier for or the lunatics run off with the asylum.

Telephone surveys go on all the time. If you had no trouble during the last four years you were selected as a lord. Congratulations on your success! If you realized the downtown, midtown and uptown commuter street looked menacing to you, a good person, then you know things have changed.

That you might share a correction with those not plugged in. Most people plugged into poverty abatement and mental illness treatment love to believe in the rich being far off and happy. The paranoid and the resentment the individuals express stems from bad medicine and really inhumane treatment of the non lording.

America WAS a kind land. America loved peace. Do I tell Israel the U.S.A. is for war every day. Do I tell Israel no one makes a pretense of friendship? Maybe, you’ll have the machine call back.

WHY are we so worried about the tapes?

WHY are the Democrats NOT going after this on the issue of waterboarding?

Is there any doubt that it hasn't been done? Either at Gitmo, at some of the CIA secret prisons, or in those countries where we've shipped some of these prisoners to be waterboarded, or tortured?

Did you do this? If so when? Who authorized you to do this? Written or verbal?

Okay, next person up the ladder.

Then you decide who is going to prison. PERIOD.

Keep this within the DOJ or not at all, preferably the latter. The last thing we need is another special counsel witch hunt like the Liddy charade. Beyond that, maybe the Democrats can start worrying more about the protection of the United States than the treatment of terrorists who want to blow all of us up. Perhaps if the Capitol had been hit on 9-11 instead of the Pentagon, the Democrats would have a different and more realistic point of view.

Bush did not want to reveal the CIA's "methods" because he knew they were criminal and in violation of the longheld Geneva Conventions regarding treatment of prisoners.

So much hokus-pokus about "detainees" but it all amounted to the same thing--they were tortured. Then they send out paid flunkys to lie about how "helpful" it was.

If this had happened under a Democratic administration, cable news would be calling for impeachment day and night.

Kenegra,

So which Democrats exactly do you feel are not worried about terrorists attacking the US? A quote or two would be real helpful. Oh, I'm sorry, you don't have any.

It's just another Republican ruse. Sort of like Guliani the other night when he talked about how we need to be on the offensive like he would be. How any one on the defensive (read other Republicans or any Democrat) would simply cause more casualties from the terrorists.

So how long do you think the American public is going to be taken in by this nonsense?

Worried about the rights of the terrorists? See that's what you folks don't understand at all. Under current laws, your great President could have you arrested and held for NO reason and held for an indeterminate length of time. In addition you could be waterboarded, but my guess is that you're part of the 27 percent that feels that waterboarding isn't torture.

Please.

The eye for an eye/tooth for a tooth caveman days are over a long time ago.

So now for the next 12 months, bu$hco, when ever asked about this, will say there is an ongoing investigation and they can't talk about. And when vice president earboy retires to his retirement in Cawford, his family's health insured by a federal government program, the whole wretched mess will be swept under the carpet, never to rear its ugly head again. These despots make every inconvenient truth disappear like so many prisoners.

William;
If I were you, I'd quit smoking that stuff right away!

John E. and dogjudge, the Military Commission Act gave the President the authority to interpret the Geneva Convention's provisions on behalf of the United States. Put another way, if Bush says that waterboarding does not qualify as cruel or inhumane under Geneva, then we are basically stuck with that. In my opinion, waterboarding crosses the line and cannot be policy, but it's only the President's interpretation that matters. The criminal investigation in the above matter is for obstruction of justice in destroying tapes in violation of a court order, not for the practice of waterboarding itself. With the tremendous amount of discretion Congress gave the President in interpreting Geneva, any kind of criminal prosecution for the act of waterboarding is highly unlikely.

"...Then you decide who is going to prison. PERIOD..."

Posted by: dogjudge | January 2, 2008 4:41 PM

Go to prison for what?

You assume a crime has been committed- by assuming that water boarding is torture.

In order for water boarding to be defined as torture for the purpose of making it illegal the congress has to PASS a law saying this...the facts are that congress attempted to PASS this law and it DID NOT PASS...

Sorry for the CAPS her but you always seem to struggle with the reality of this issue- you WANT it to be illegal, not for the water boarded persons sake, but to provide you with an opportunity to moralize about how evil the admin is and use the water boarding issue as a "see look" event. YOUR DEM led congress wanted it to be illegal for the same reasons ( or lack of)

The dilemma you have with your lock em up strategy is this..

IF water boarding has always been illegal, why did the DEM congressional leaders feel the need to attempt to pass a law making it illegal? You can't make something MORE illegal...

So now, you would prefer to out CIA agents, operating within the law ( or at least NOT operating outside of it) for the sake of sending someone to jail for a political score? Typical, DEM led, short sighted, immature temper tantrum being thrown in lieu of any other positive activity.

"In order for water boarding to be defined as torture for the purpose of making it illegal the congress has to PASS a law saying this."

Nope. Simply not true.

Torture is illegal. The law does not have to specifically define every combination of actions that could comprise torture in order for those actions to be prosecuted.

But heartburn, since you find waterboarding to be perfectly legal, acceptable and not to be torture, is there any reason the Chicago Police cannot use waterboarding in their investigations?

Heartburn,

The US has pushed the conviction of various people specifically for waterboarding.

One was a Japanese during WW II. The other was a US soldier during Vietnam.

So it was illegal before, by US standards. In addition it is illegal per VARIOUS treaties that we have signed.

Now you want to give us your LEGAL opinion why this President and his administration are magically exempted from this? And NO Congress did not give the President the authority to interpret the Geneva Convention. If anything, the COURTS interpret the law, not the President.

Posted by: AJF | January 2, 2008 6:04 PM

Nope. Simply not true.

Torture is illegal. The law does not have to specifically define every combination of actions that could comprise torture in order for those actions to be prosecuted.

And congress attempted to define it as torture...why? Nothing better to do?

"...But heartburn, since you find waterboarding to be perfectly legal, acceptable and not to be torture, is there any reason the Chicago Police cannot use waterboarding in their investigations? ..."

WOW- things have changed in Chicago!

Yes- I agree with you-the Chicago Police should be required to follow the Geneva Convention/Military Commission Act rules for interrogating all of those non-uniformed, enemy combatants, or Alqueda terrorists captured in the city.

Per Heartburn:

"You assume a crime has been committed- by assuming that water boarding is torture."

Wrong. You can obstruct justice by impeding an investigation. It doesn't matter that the subject of the investigation turns out not to be a crime.

What foggy memories you folks have. It wasn't that long ago that the Republicants speechified/preachified night and day about a certain sitting President who was accused of obstructing justice by lying about a consensual sexual affair. There was no underlying crime, but there was an investigation.

Try some ginko extract, HB.

Watching conservatives try and spin things is embarrasing. Bush acted illegally. His claim is that he can interpret ceratin laws any way he wants. His supporters excuse anything he does on the basis of necessity. Then they blame other countries for not following in out footsteps. What a load of hooey!

To dogjudge:

Standing up for one's ideals (in this case, against torture of prisoners and in support of international treaties which the United States has signed) and supporting the security of the citizens of the United States are not mutually exclusives.

It's not one or the other.

dogjudge, you wrote "The last thing we need is another special counsel witch hunt like the Liddy charade."

Are you saying that enforcing the law is a charade?

Scott

"So now, you would prefer to out CIA agents, operating within the law ( or at least NOT operating outside of it) for the sake of ... a political score? Typical, ... short sighted, immature temper tantrum being thrown in lieu of any other positive activity."

You mean like Valerie Plame Wilson?

You mean like Valerie Plame Wilson?

Posted by: Lenny | January 2, 2008 8:32 PM

Yep- pretty much... of course comparing the undercover status of Valerie Plame Wilson to the agents interrogating terrorist is like comparing my jumpshot to Dr. J's

Scott,

Sorry, but you need to go back and read the posts more carefully.

It was Kenegra who came up with that stupid idea, not me.

William M.
Right on buddy! You nailed that one. I couldn't have said it better myself. BANG ON!

Just one clarification; Is it the non Lording doing the mistreating or being mistreated?

Thanks in advance. Keep up the good work.

IF water boarding has always been illegal, why did the DEM congressional leaders feel the need to attempt to pass a law making it illegal? You can't make something MORE illegal...
So now, you would prefer to out CIA agents, operating within the law ( or at least NOT operating outside of it) for the sake of sending someone to jail for a political score? Typical, DEM led, short sighted, immature temper tantrum being thrown in lieu of any other positive activity.

Posted by: heartburn | January 2, 2008 5:48 PM

heartdisease,

If Dems were involved in this they should be punished, but this all starts with the crooked Republican administration that currently resides in the White House.

We've not only learned more Bu$hCo obstructionism on revealing facts about 9/11.

We've also just had our noses rubbed in the fact that the detainees whose testimony was the basis of most of what the 9/11 Commission reported about the operational details of 9/11 were tortured, and have learned that evidence showing that and how this was done was destroyed. What value is left to that testimony now?

You don't torture people to learn the facts. You torture them to get them to say what you want them to say.

Take an antacid pill and go sit in the corner with your dunce hat on and quit trying to cover up for your crooked Repub heroes in the White House, heartburn.

The way things are going, Prez 26%'s library will be closet sized but with a BIG sign on the front door: "Everything Here is Classified! Truthy Seekers please Go Away" ( The background is a photo of Cheney with rifle). Good luck at getting to the bottom of this. The pardon list will be several telephone books thick...starting with Cheney.

Mission "Constitution Shredding" Accomplished!

"And congress attempted to define it as torture...why? Nothing better to do?"

No, because the Bush Cheney administratiion refuses to acknowledge that waterboarding is torture.

Oh and go read the Military Commision Act heartburn. It specifically says thet ALL Constitutional provisions against cruel and inhumane treatment that apply to american citizens apply to all people held by the United States, so if you want to argue that it is legal to waterboard a suspected terrorist, you also have to argue that is is legal to waterboard any US citizen.

(c) Additional > Prohibition on Cruel,
Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.--
(1) In general.--No individual in the custody or under the
physical control of the United States Government, regardless of
nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
(2) Cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment
defined.--In this subsection, the term ``cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment or punishment'' means cruel, unusual, and
inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States, as defined in the United States Reservations,
Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention
Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.
(3) Compliance.--
The > President shall take
action to ensure compliance with this subsection, including
through the establishment of administrative rules and
procedures."

heartburn, watch what you wish for, you might be next for a bit of waterboarding. Or maybe your kids will.

dogjudge wrote:

"And NO Congress did not give the President the authority to interpret the Geneva Convention. If anything, the COURTS interpret the law, not the President."

Not quite. This is the provision from the MCA:

"As provided by the Constitution and this Section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions . . ." Sec.6(3)(a).

You do raise an interesting point about the courts, which the MCA states something to the effect of "nothing in this section shall affect the role of the courts". That implies to me that Bush's decisions could be subject to judicial review. I wouldn't get too excited about that, as the Supreme Court rarely gets involved in second guessing the exercise of executive discretion, especially when the issue is national security, and when the President was expressly granted the discretion by Congress. If there is going to be a successful court challenge to the practice of waterboarding, I think it would have to be brought by a US citizen, detained on US soil, with the challenge not being under the Geneva Conventions, but under our own Constitutional protection from cruel and unusual punishment.

heartburn, watch what you wish for, you might be next for a bit of waterboarding. Or maybe your kids will.

Posted by: AJF | January 2, 2008 9:56 PM

Please- enough of the drama - I haven't wished for anything. Relax and take a look at this issue with some logic, and without the political agenda. I have been very clear every time we go around this subject- I DO NOT THINK WATERBOARDING SHOULD BE USED- OR SHOULD BE LEGAL..our opinions mean nothing from a legal aspect.

Having said that, lawmakers need to develop a backbone and make specific laws that don't leave room for interpretation by people in the field.. the definition of torture does not define itself well enough to wholesale exclusion of waterboarding.
Example- I believe it was Abu Zubaydah. that was waterboarded for some 30 seconds before he started talking.. couldn't it be argued that subjecting someone with the sensation of drowning for 30 seconds does not meet the definition of torture?

It seems reasonable to me that the field agents would not have seen waterboarding as torture or as illegal.

If there is a doubt about whether the practice is torture, inhumane, or degrading ENOUGH to be illegal (torture) we owe them the benefit of that doubt.
Think about it- isn't imprisoning someone inhumane and degrading?
(Its kidnapping if you try this outside of the justice system) Are we guilty of torturing people that are tried and imprisoned for crimes??

Congress owns the job of writing better legislation that does not create these areas of interpretation.

heartburn,

Your last post was one of the most reasonable posts I've seen from you. My compliments.

As for waterboarding that happened with the CIA and other potential cases.

Please note that use of this technique did NOT come up before this administration.

Should you care to look into the reasons more, you need look no further than Cheney/Rumsfeld. BOTH were part of the Nixon administration. The history of that administration was such that it took the idea of Presidential power and extended it beyond any other President, that is until Bush. Cheney has never shied away from the idea of unlimited powers for the President.

The problem here isn't Congress writing laws. The problem is a President essentially saying that he has the power to interpret anything in any way. This starts with his signing statements, to him simply ignoring current laws and treaties.

Example. The McCain bill on torture was very specific. That being said, the President simply issued a signing statement saying that he would ignore the law that he had just signed. This effectively vetoed a law that he really didn't veto. At that point, Congress is stuck. No matter what they pass, the President can issue a signing statement. They then cannot override his veto since he hasn't vetoed the law.

There are many groups, such as the American Bar Association, who say that all of this is illegal on the part of the President. Until it gets into the courts, we'll never know.

Example- I believe it was "Abu Zubaydah. that was waterboarded for some 30 seconds before he started talking.. couldn't it be argued that subjecting someone with the sensation of drowning for 30 seconds does not meet the definition of torture?"

You answer your own question. What made him talk? If the 30 seconds wasn't torture, what made him "break"?

"It seems reasonable to me that the field agents would not have seen waterboarding as torture or as illegal."

Ignorance of the law is never a defense. It doesn't matter if they thought it was illegal or not.

"Congress owns the job of writing better legislation that does not create these areas of interpretation."

No, that is why we have the courts system. Judges and juries make these kinds of interpretations for all sorts of crimes every day.

AJF said
"...You answer your own question. What made him talk? If the 30 seconds wasn't torture, what made him "break"?..."

Obviously, the waterboarding made him talk-the question is and my examples logic holds up...
Your logic would lead us to no interrogation technique being acceptable if the criteria for excluding it is that the prisoner talks.

AJF said-
Ignorance of the law is never a defense. It doesn't matter if they thought it was illegal or not.

your right- but you miss the point, it does matter if the law is written in a way that it cannot be enforced. Example- If Chicago changes all of the stop signs in the city to blue circles - but still call them stop signs, will you be successfully prosecuted for running a stop sign?

The courts will likely have the final answer.

AJF said-

No, that is why we have the courts system. Judges and juries make these kinds of interpretations for all sorts of crimes every day.

Scary misunderstanding of the role of the judiciary vs legislative..
Your allowing the judiciary broad interpretation powers puts the judiciary's role past defining whether a law was broken or enforced to actually defining the law...might be a coined phrase, but you cannot legislate from the bench.

"Your allowing the judiciary broad interpretation powers puts the judiciary's role past defining whether a law was broken or enforced to actually defining the law."

You are truly misinformed if you do not understand that this happens in most criminal trials. Terms like battery , assault, fraud, are defined in very broad general terms. The laws do not specifically spell out every possible action that could be comsidered any of those crimes. Prosecuters decide if they think a particular action is a violation of the particular crime. A grand jury may be convened to make that determination. A trial is held to examine the evidence and determine guilt or innocence, sometimes over a range of possible crimes. How often have you heard of a person only being found guilty of manslaughter rather than murder? Should the person not be tried since the legislature did not pass a law that specifically determined that the particular and unique sequence of actions involved in the case was one of those crimes or another?

Lets say the law you want is passed...and waterboarding is specifically made illegal. Do we need to pass describe every possible variant of waterboarding? Do we need to pass a specific law saying electric shocks to the genitals is torture? Do we need to pass a law saying that chopping off your fingers one by one is torture? How about your toes? How many millions of laws do you want passed?

There are many groups, such as the American Bar Association, who say that all of this is illegal on the part of the President. Until it gets into the courts, we'll never know.

Posted by: dogjudge | January 3, 2008 11:29 AM

I agree , unfortunately, Courts will likely be the last word here-

At the risk of sounding like I support the technique-

you have to consider the fact that the technique works, and that it may have already saved many innocent lives before you are too critical of the presidents use of his power to use discretion in how the geneva convention rules are applied.

This issue is not black and white, and should not continue to be the political hammer that it has become.