Panetta: No Prosecutions For CIA Torturers (Crooks and Liars)

[chill_wind]

Panetta: No Prosecutions For CIA Torturers
By Cernig Friday Feb 06, 2009 7:00pm

The AP reports that CIA Director-nominee Leon Panetta has stated categorically that there will be no prosecutions for torturers.

Asked by The Associated Press if that was official policy, Panetta said, "That is the case."

It was the clearest statement yet on what Panetta and other Democratic officials had only strongly suggested: CIA officers who acted on legal orders from the Bush administration would not be held responsible for those policies. On Thursday, he told senators that the Obama administration had no intention of seeking prosecutions for that reason.

(...)


As I've written before - and Scott Horton in particular has done a great job in pointing to the correct legal precedents for - being told torture and other war crimes were legally justified (especially when they cannot be) is no excuse. International law which was in part established by American prosecutors and judges at Nuremberg is that it is up to each individual to act his conscience and to bear the consequences of so doing.

Worse, not prosecuting the torturers sets up a malicious feedback that fatally undermines prosecutions for ordering torture. If there's no prosecution for commission of a crime, how can someone be prosecuted for ordering what is apparently admitted isn't a crime? No defense lawyer is going to pass up such a gift argument and the Obama administration knows it. Not prosecuting those who tortured is a "get out of jail free card" not only for the torturers but for those who ordered torture and those who falsely said torture could ever be legal. It's a travesty of justice and one that Chris Dodd has sadly admitted Democratic leaders have looked the other way on for purely political reasons.

more: http://crooksandliars.com/cernig/panetta-no-prosecutions-cia-torturers


UN Human Rights Chief: There is no let-out clause Thursday, 01.22.09

Calling for a thorough investigation into allegations of torture at Guantánamo, she said, ``under international law, there is an absolute prohibition against torture, and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.''

''There is no let-out clause,'' Pillay stressed. ``There must be accountability for those who have ordered such practices or carried them out, and victims should receive recompense.''

Pillay, who was a South African judge before taking the top U.N. human rights post headquartered in Geneva last summer, also raised concerns about U.S. detentions in locations outside the United States including Afghanistan and Iraq.

''There have been many disturbing questions about the legality of overseas centers such as the Bagram base in Afghanistan,'' she said. ``These too need to be resolved quickly and satisfactorily, in order to reestablish full respect for human rights across the board.''

from:
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/americas/guantanamo/story/868096.html
bold & italics mine

[depakid]

1. Clinton retread- what would one expect?

Accountability?

[Fridays Child]

2. Is that even his decision to make?

[MedfordTim]

3. My response to this news as posted at TYT

Continuing down the Wrong Path...

Leon Panetta has stated clearly that his CIA will not be pursuing prosecution of agents involved in torture. He decided that before going to his confirmation hearings, before meeting CIA officials in preparation of taking his office. And he backed off his assertion that the Bushies transported prisoners to be tortured elsewhere.

"It was the clearest statement yet on what Panetta and other Democratic officials had only strongly suggested: CIA officers who acted on legal orders from the Bush administration would not be held responsible for those policies."

And it didn't take long.

Mind you, these are NOT soldiers we're talking about. Not some fresh from high school pimply faced country bumpkin dunking a few Hadji's in between thoughts of diddling his girl back home.

These are highly trained, well educated people placed in extremely powerful positions in our government. I can understand people giving passes to low level soldiers following orders in the heat of battle. I cannot comprehend doing the same for people who should know better. I will not accept that they had no way of knowing that what they were doing was not right, just, or legal, no matter WHAT John Yoo said. They knew Nuremberg, they knew Geneva, they knew what treaties we are bound by law to follow, and yet they "followed orders" without question, without argument, without conscience.

Now it's: "we just can't operate if people feel even if they are following the legal opinions of the Justice Department they could be in danger of prosecution"

That's the fucking POINT, dipshit!!

We WANT them to question the legality of such orders. We WANT them to recognize when something is out-of-bounds and just plain wrong and NOT DO IT. If they don't have the ethics or the judgement to discern that making a person believe he's drowning is FUCKIN' A WRONG no matter WHO tells you it's "legal" - WE DON'T WANT THEM WORKING THERE!

They SHOULD be looking over their shoulders, because when they are, they are looking out for America. Each of these people took an oath upon entering the CIA. I can't locate a copy of that oath (Secret?), but if it follows ALL the other oaths, they pledge to uphold and defend the Constitution - not a President, not a Justice Department memo, not the illegal actions of petty despot Vice-Presidents who out one of your own.

I'm not saying "Everyone should go to jail." I AM saying that everyone must be held accountable, we need to know who did what and THEY need to know IT CANNOT HAPPEN AGAIN. A blanket amnesty of the type Panetta is tossing over this bunch ensures that they and those who follow in their footsteps will surely do it again. As long as someone claims it's legal, their asses are covered and they can do as they please.

Another step down the wrong path. I thought this was an opportunity to clean the slate, not just turn it over and use the other side...

[chill_wind]

4. And he will retain *the top 4 officials* now at the CIA. "I know how Washington works." You bet.

Panetta acknowledged that he has little professional intelligence experience. But, he added: "I know Washington. I know how it works. I think I also know why it fails to work."

For intelligence expertise, he said, he would retain the top four officials now at the CIA, including Deputy Director Steven Kappes. He promised not to meddle in day-to-day intelligence operations.

[Baby Snooks]

5. This is change?

This is not change. This is the dynasty continuing.

[ihavenobias]

9. Very well said. n/t

[Demeter]

6. Hit Them Hard and Fast--That's Our Only Option

I have a feeling it's going to be a long, hot summer--about 4 years' worth.

[acmavm]

7. Does anyone else but me ever wonder why our resident Obamabots

never show up on the really serious threads like this one? This is SERIOUS! The end of torture and the prosecution of the liars who set up all these 'rendition' and information gathering techniques are two great big reasons Obama sits in the White House today.

But I always said, nothing will be done.

[chill_wind]

15. I'm refraining from the 'bots' label, because

I see just how well it provides quick cover for those it angers at further keeping the the discussion at a superficial level. The policy discussions, even doubts and questions themselves end up getting drowned out, which doesn't appear to always make his most ardent blanket supporters all that unhappy.

l also have to refrain from it, because not all that long I could characterize myself somewhat that way, once it came down to the 2 obvious contenders in the primaries. I wanted change, and I didn't feel the Clintons Redux would bring as much as Obama. A jillion times it was said that there was barely a dime's worth of difference in their positions on the big issues , which I conveniently managed to compartmentalize, so I could keep myself as comfortably deluded as I could that some of that might actually be changed later. By the pressures of the same net roots (us) that helped him get Iowa and everywhere else. I realized all along that we were only a portion of that success and that Wall Street occupied a bigger portion, but any McCain Palin alternative was too grim to even think about. So like a million other netrooters, I donated, donated, phone banked, canvassed, rallied and joined my share of jubilant conga lines every time there was something to celebrate.

A lot of DU is still compartmentalizing, I think. That's why the giddy threads will continue to fly well and the angry or uncomfortable ones ignored.

Cognitive dissonance is a bitch-- ask me how I know.

I'm in post-election fatigue rehab now. Fuzzy Panetta seriously worries me. Along with a whole growing cast of others.

[chill_wind]

8. !

[Mrs. Ted Nancy]

10. He hasn't been confirmed yet

Call your senators and the White House.

Here's a list of e-mail addresses and phone numbers for the senate.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Here's one for the White House. Scroll down to get phone numbers.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

[bobthedrummer]

11. Let's see, George Tenet brought US "Buzzy" Krongard-and one time the Middle East peace plan was The

Tenet Plan based on the Wye River agreements.
:think:

[Tutonic]

12. Was that a wink in his eye when he said that?

[HooptieWagon]

13. I thought the "just following orders" legal defense was discredited 6 decades ago.

also, if the DOJ were to wind up prosecuting top level Bush and CIA officials, the threat of prosecution of lower level CIA operatives might help them decide to turn State's Evidence. Minus that threat, they'll likely just clam up.

[bobthedrummer]

14. K&R

[bertman]

16. Call me naive because I'm certainly no Obamabot, but expecting CIA field operatives

to be legal experts who research every decision handed down to them is a bit like asking a McDonald's franchise owner to track down the source of the meat in one hamburger.

When you work for an intelligence organization and are told by way of the chain of command that the President has authorized the use of "enhanced" interrogation techniques AND you know that the Vice President and President have gone on record saying that we, meaning the U.S., will do whatever it takes to get the terrists, why would you not believe that OUR government's policies had been changed by the Commander-in-Chief?

These orders were sent down the chain of command by the highest ranking officers in our military and intelligence organizations. They are the ones who should be held accountable. Not the Lynde Englands of the world.

I will be outraged if there is no action taken against those at the highest levels who authorized this. And I hope that is not what Panetta's statement is signaling.

[BlueMTexpat]

21. Perhaps I too am naive, but I believe that CIA field operatives are a bit higher

up the command chain than the Lynndie Englunds (sp?) of the world. That said, I concur that it is not ONLY the lower-downs who should suffer the consequences of their actions.

The US helped establish precedents at the Nuremberg Trials that "just following orders" is not an excuse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials#Location

Or is that ONLY the case for everyone else in the world? Interestingly, the US is a signatory party to the UN Convention Against Torture, but has not yet ratified it. http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html That in itself is certainly not something to be proud of.

Torture. Is. WRONG. Legally. Or. Morally. Under. Any. Circumstances. Period.

That requires no legal research whatsoever.

[chill_wind]

23. Here's what Prof. Jonathan Turley said on Olbermann (video):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=269405&mesg_id=269405

[balantz]

17. Put another slippery eel in the Obama bucket. n/t

[pmorlan1]

18. Meet the New Boss - Same as the Old Boss?

Hopefully Eric Holder will actually be an INDEPENDENT Attorney General who will actually follow the rule of law.

[pmorlan1]

19. Pathetic

What a kick in the teeth to all of those courageous people who refused to torture and then had to watch helplessly as the thugs who ordered torture and committed torture were rewarded by the Bush administration.

[glitch]

22. And risked their lives and careers to expose the torture.

:grr:

Welcome to DU though.

[Hydra]

20. And people here laughed when I told them that the idea of "illegal orders" was rediculous

I think I'll quote Nixon here: "It's not illegal when the President does it."