Is Panetta right about prosecuting CIA officers?

[Perky]

Poll question: Is Panetta right about prosecuting CIA officers?

Panetta: No Prosecution for CIA Interrogators
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: February 6, 2009
Filed at 1:28 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration will not prosecute CIA officers who participated in harsh interrogations that critics say crossed the line into torture, CIA Director-nominee Leon Panetta said Friday.

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.

Panetta, in an interview with the AP after a second day of confirmation hearings with the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that he arrived at that conclusion even before he began meeting with CIA officials.

''It was my opinion 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, he said.

The Nuremberg defense is not precisely on point here. It was grotesque s;slaughter of millions ordered by a madman. This was a legal finding by those who were trying to extract intelligence by any means necessary rather than for their own jollies, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR TORTURE...EVER!!!! But the guys in the field, did what they did with the belief that there was no legal impediment.

THE GUILTY ARE THOSE AT THE TOP STARTING WITH CHENEY. THe question this poll ask is whether the CIA Chief in waiting is right that you can't go after the guys in the field when they believed that they were acting within the law.

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. Anybody involved ought to be prosecuted. Apply the same god damn

laws that apply to illegal gang activity.

[Perky]

2. wow all over the place KIcking for more votes

[Thrill]

3. I doubt Panetta is speaking for the Obama Administration right now

[Perky]

4. kicking it again,

[EFerrari]

5. If we're going to restore the rule of law, these people must be prosecuted.

[AtomicKitten]

6. Panetta is wrong. They are culpable. Very disappointing. :(

[WinkyDink]

7. There is no law requiring one to obey orders to torture. Cf., "Trials, Nuremburg." Panetta is weak.

Another member of the Democratic Men's Club.

[democrattotheend]

8. If anyone is prosecuted, it should be the people who gave the orders and the legal opinions

Soldiers should not be prosecuted for not refusing to follow an order. My understanding is that in many cases soldiers can be prosecuted or discharged FOR refusing an order if it's not deemed to be illegal, which means refusing an order is a great personal risk for a soldier. The way the military works, in most cases soldiers are required to follow orders, and they should not be prosecuted for doing so. If the military is going to function properly we can't rely on soldiers refusing orders...we need to make sure that the people who give the orders follow the law, and that they are given accurate information from the top about what the law is.

[H2O Man]

9. Panetta does not

make that decision.

[ProgressIn2008]

10. No justice = complicity. "Just following orders" will never work for me.

And, there are always some who bravely refuse to just follow orders.

[hologram]

11. Turley reminds us that

"we were only following orders" did not save the criminals from the rope at Nuremberg.

[jberryhill]

12. There is a legal problem...

We have a structural problem with the DoJ relative to the White House.

Many assume that the US Attorney's office is a "natural" part of the executive branch generally. The problem arises when the DoJ is called upon to enforce the law with respect to executive branch operations.

What we usually rely upon is the professionalism and independent judgment supposed to be exercised by attorneys. By and large, that's not bad, but we've run into repeated problems like the one I am about to explain.

Nuremberg is about following military orders.

Under US law, following an unlawful military order is unlawful.

But under US criminal law, it is a defense to a criminal charge if, prior to the act, you received a decision from the official responsible for enforcing that law that you could do what you did. This is normal with quite a few laws and regulations. For example, you can seek a clearance letter from the Justice Department if you have a concern that your business plan would violate anti-trust law. If you get a clearance letter, then you have a solid defense to an anti-trust charge, even if the management changes at DoJ, so long as you are doing what you described in your clearance letter request. Same with tax law.

Now there is some question about activities pre- and post- Ashcroft hospital drama, but if you want to charge people with acts committed after they had received an opinion from the Attorney General that what they were doing is legal (even if the opinion is a POS), then they are going to have a defense.

This entire problem is at the core of the drama that ensued when the administration needed Asscroft to sign an opinion "right away", even though he was hospitalized at the time.

[liberalsince1968]

13. They should ALL be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And I am very disappointed in Obama

for not seeing to it.

Torture is WRONG, period. And so are Presidents who won't punish those who engage in it.

"I was just following orders" does not cut it.

But the real problem is, Obama won't go after those at the top who ordered it, either.