The Question of Liability Stirs Concern at the C.I.A.

[DoYouEverWonder]

September 16, 2006

WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 — Behind the debate between Congress and the White House over the proper treatment of terror suspects is an old fear at the Central Intelligence Agency: that officers could be vulnerable to lawsuits, or even criminal prosecution, for actions they believed at the time complied with administration policy.

Legislation proposed by the White House would address that concern head-on by offering retroactive protection for some actions taken since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Specifically, it would amend the War Crimes Act to prohibit only certain “serious violations” of a provision of the Geneva Conventions, including torture, murder and other clearly unsanctioned acts.

The distinction is a crucial one, because the War Crimes Act prohibits any violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which outlaws “outrages upon personal dignity” and “humiliating and degrading treatment.” In view of the Supreme Court’s ruling in June that Common Article 3 applies to all interrogations of terror suspects, some harsh techniques used by C.I.A. or military officers since 2001 could be viewed as illegal under the existing law.

The plan favored by the White House bans what it defines as “serious violations of Common Article 3,” including murder, torture and the use of biological experiments. The alternative favored by a group of Republican senators led by Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, does not introduce any such distinction.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/16/washington/16legal.html

The CIA isn't the only place that is concerned. Bush & Co are in a panic too and Bush knows he can't twist enough arms to change enough laws quick enough to save his sorry ass.

[acmejack]

1. We're buying them insurance.

What more needs to be said?

[soothsayer]

2. When you look at every horrid thing the CIA has ever done, you'd

know they should all be strung up somewhere.

[rodeodance]

3. you say Bushco is paniced also--I do not know if they are or not. They

continue to exert-exceed the powers of the presidency---use the office for their purposes. this does not give me a sence that they are paniced--maybe they are??


.......The CIA isn't the only place that is concerned. Bush & Co are in a panic too and Bush knows he can't twist enough arms to change enough laws quick enough to save his sorry ass..........

[DoYouEverWonder]

5. Did you get to see Bush's press conference yesterday?

Bush looked like he was finally going to lose it. He was completely freaked out.



I think the number of flags they are draping around him is a good indicator of the level of panic inside.

[me b zola]

26. Good observation

I think the number of flags they are draping around him is a good indicator of the level of panic inside.

--also the level of panic that they want us to feel...

I think they have replaced the color chart with flags. 2 flags=low terror level, 4 flags=moderate terror level...you get the idea

[DoYouEverWonder]

28. Crap, things must be really bad

That's at least a 7 flag alert they're flying.

[The Wielding Truth]

27. No doubt he was trusted to follow Geneva Convention and did not!

He is guilty for he is responsible as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces to regulate,conform,and comply with these rules. He did not and is in breach of contract of his office. War crimes is a major offense. He does not deny the proof that he condoned it, and it happened. So he has broken his pledge along with many others to uphold and protect the laws of the USA.
He must face a swift and just preset penalty. He is not above the law, and torture is not a parking ticket.

[fooj]

32. Wow. Clear, concise assessment.

He MUST be held accountable.

[FloridaPat]

4. Isn't the CIA the company that killed presidents and leaders world

wide for decades? And they're worried about a little torture? I wonder what's really going on.

[sattahipdeep]

9. I wonder what's really going on

outrages upon human dignity.

[IndianaGreen]

6. CIA, Pentagon, White House, etc, they'll all be held accountable some day

and no law passed by a Republican-dominated Congress will save them from the people's wrath, and from facing justice either at an international crimes court, or at special popular tribunals set up just to try them for their many crimes.

We can't let these thugs go unpunished like Pinochet or Idi Amin!

[sattahipdeep]

7. Evil deeds

"Similar crimes by other dictators might be discouraged or deterred
in future. The process of justice through law, on which the safety
of humankind depends, would be reinforced."

But on May 6, 2002--less than a year before the invasion of Iraq--the
Bush administration withdrew the United States' signature on the
treaty and began pressuring other countries to approve bilateral
agreements requiring them not to surrender U.S. nationals to the ICC.

Three months later, George W. Bush signed a new law prohibiting any
U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court.

The law went so far as to include a provision authorizing the president
to "use all means necessary and appropriate," including a military invasion
of the Netherlands, to free U.S. personnel detained or imprisoned by the ICC.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/oneworld/20060825/wl_oneworld/45361383191156511966

[LynnTheDem]

23. "a military invasion of the Netherlands". Who was the last person

who invaded the Netherlands, I wonder?

I bet someone invaded them.

[DoYouEverWonder]

20. Maybe we can build them a special courtroom

like they did in Italy when they tried all the Mafiosos together?

[IndianaGreen]

21. There you go, a cage for all the neocons!

Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, and the rest of the gang should be in a cage. They should be tried together and, if convicted, they should hang together.

[flyarm]

25. and if congress allows it..they will then be accountable! n/t

[rman]

8. Pretty much an admission that they are engaged in criminal activities

The secret services, the pentagon and the Bush administration.

[salin]

10. why now? Why are they just *now* concerned?

More to the point - why is the media raising this story/issue now (as if the problem only just now became an issue)... oh - to support bush's efforts to create a vote in congress to bludgeon political opponents with in 90 second campaign ads.

And the media complies with the timing desired by roveco, once again.

[DoYouEverWonder]

11. Because of the Supreme Court ruling in June

regarding detainees and their rights made it clear that holding people at Gitmo indefinitely and trying them in secret tribunals was against the law.

[salin]

12. It is September. Again - why NOW.

It isn't in immediate response to June. It is political framing (which I think will fail) for bushco.

[DoYouEverWonder]

13. Because Congress is refusing to change US law

to make torture legal since 09/2001 which is what Bush is asking for.

Also on Thurs, Bush & Cheney had a five hour session with DOD lawyers who refused to sign on to Bush's scheme.

[salin]

18. I understand that...

I also understand that this is one of the issues that the WH team is trying to turn into a campaign issue (and they are failing at it) by attempting to shift the dialogue on the issue of torture - to where the public views it as "necessary" (in this particular story - "to protect CIA officers") - and once the public begins to get numb to the torture aspect of the legislation - than the WH team hopes to turn it into the next campaign issue to use against opponents (ala the Chambliss/Cleland campaign.) To ignore the timing of this PR push - and the media's touting of it as if this story just "broke" (no, the WH push on it and their talking points are what are breaking right now... not the issue ... which has been an issue since the WH backed policies have been used by the CIA (and military) - and then became a bigger issue due to the SC ruling MONTHS ago.)

This is important both as a SERIOUS public policy issue and as another example of how the WH manipulates the media to push a story line to sell to the public for political gain.

[sattahipdeep]

14. But White House bans murder, torture and biological experiments

The alternative favored by a group of Republican senators led by
Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services
Committee, does not introduce any such distinction. :eyes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/16/washington/16legal.html

[salin]

19. Frightening.. it seems like we have woken up in an alternative

universe after bushco came to power. I can not imagine such a debate even occuring at any other time in my adult life-time.

[BootinUp]

15. They should have thought of this before the crime. n/t

[sattahipdeep]

16. Yes...Outrages upon human dignity. n/t

[DoYouEverWonder]

17. They did

They knew they what they were planning was a war crime. They thought they would be in complete control by now and it wouldn't matter. They seem to forget that for every action is a reaction and then they are appalled when someone dares to react. Because they refuse to even consider what the other side thinks, they are blindsided when things go wrong.

[LynnTheDem]

22. Did you ever think one day AMERICA would be arguing over the Geneva

Conventions???

How bloody horrendously far we've fallen.

bush & the neocons; America's enemies, America's traitors.

[YDogg]

24. If they get a "do over," do we get a "do over" on the 2000 election?

[Up2Late]

29. What do they care, they now have Liability Insurance that WE pay for!

<http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060911/pl_afp/usattacksjustice_060911101507>

CIA interrogators sign up for liability insurance: report

Mon Sep 11, 6:15 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Many CIA officers involved in questioning war-on-terror detainees have signed up for a government-reimbursed insurance plan that would pay their legal expenses if they are sued or charged with criminal wrongdoing, a newspaper has reported.

Citing unnamed current and former intelligence officials, the Washington Post said Monday the trend reflects heightened anxiety at the Central Intelligence Agency that officers may be vulnerable to accusations they were involved in abuse, torture, human rights violations and other misconduct.

They worry that they will not have Justice Department representation in court or congressional inquiries, the report said.

The Post said the anxieties stem partly from public controversy about a system of secret CIA prisons, in which detainees were subjected to harsh interrogation methods, including temperature extremes and simulated drowning.

(more at link) <http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060911/pl_afp/usattacksjustice_060911101507>

[cyberpj]

30. Who would bring them to trial? I thought Bush pulled US from all the

International oversight groups or else wrote laws excluding the US from rules. ?

[EVDebs]

31. Whatever happened to 'plausible deniability' ?

oops. I guess that only happens when they're busy whacking JFK, RFK, or MLK !

[DoYouEverWonder]

33. Bush blew it

when he admitted he was the decider.