QuoteObama says he could be open to probe of interrogation methods
By JENNIFER LOVEN • ASSOCIATED PRESS • April 21, 2009
WASHINGTON — Saying the United States lost "our moral bearings" with gruesome interrogations of suspected terrorists, President Barack Obama left the door open today to possible prosecution of those who authorized the methods used during the Bush administration.
"That is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws, and I don't want to prejudge that," he said after a White House meeting with King Abdullah of Jordan.
Obama has said he does not want to see prosecutions of CIA agents and interrogators who took part in waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics, as long as they acted within the advice from superiors that such practices were legal at the time. But the Obama administration's stance on the Bush administration lawyers who wrote the memos approving these tactics has been less clear, and the president declined to make that question black-and-white.
"There are a host of very complicated issues involved," he said.
Obama took a question on the topic for the first time since he ordered last Thursday's release of top-secret Bush-era memos that give the governments first full accounting of the CIA's use of simulated drowning and other harsh methods while questioning terror suspects. Obama banned all the techniques days after taking office, but lawsuits and members of Congress have continued to seek the release of information about the early stages of the U.S. response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terorrist attacks under former President George W. Bush.
The president also said he worries about the impact of high-intensity, politicized hearings on how detainees were treated.
Nevertheless, he said he could support a congressional inquiry, though only if it were conducted in a bipartisan way "outside of the typical hearing process" and with the participation of "independent participants who are above reproach." This, he said, could help ensure that any investigation would be a tool to learn, not to provide partisan advantage to one side or another.
"That would probably be a more sensible approach to take," Obama said. "I'm not saying that it should be done, I'm saying that if you've got a choice."
The president made clear that his preference would be not to revisit the era extensively.
"As a general view, I do think we should be looking forward, not back," Obama said. "I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively, and it hampers our abilty to carry out critical national security operations."
Last week, Obama's Justice Department published previously classified memos that described the Bush administration's legal justification for CIA interrogation techniques that included methods criticized as torture.
On one side, Republican lawmakers and former CIA chiefs have criticized the memos' release, contending that revealing the limits of interrogation techniques will hamper the effectiveness of interrogators and critical U.S. relationships with foreign intelligence services.
On the other side, the memos' release has appeared to increase calls for further investigations of the Bush-era terrorist treatment program and for prosecutions of those responsible for any techniques that crossed the line into torture.
The part in bold amused me. They were only following orders.
I no longer like Obama that much. I wish to amend my earlier thread.
As an interesting piece of trivia, during WW2 nazis actually commissioned a number of legal opinions which confirmed that they do not need to apply the rules of the Geneva Convention to the Soviet soldiers taken prisoner, because Russia was not a party to the convention. This gave them the right to use torture, interrogate them or starve them to death.
This is of course bollocks, but shows that even the most shameless war criminals want to pretend they are on the safe side of law.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 21, 2009, 03:01:14 PM
I no longer like Obama that much. I wish to amend my earlier thread.
I like him more and more. I hope he hangs Gonzales.
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2009, 03:01:58 PM
I like him more and more. I hope he hangs Gonzales.
I'm sure he'll hold the most non-partisan show trial possible. :)
With the statements in the news the last couple of days by CIA people and I think Cheney as well, it certainly sounds like they really believe a majority will think their methods were worth doing once what they found out is revealed. I dunno.
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2009, 03:01:58 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 21, 2009, 03:01:14 PM
I no longer like Obama that much. I wish to amend my earlier thread.
I like him more and more. I hope he hangs Gonzales.
Me too. Having him tried and convicted beforehand would be a bonus as well.
I love the way Cheney's entire defense of the matter hangs on waiting for the gathered intel to be released. Does he really believe the public at large is stupid enough to believe "the ends justify the means?"
Also, he's accusing Obama of releasing national secrets by exposing how many potential abuses the past administration engaged in, but he's the one asking the CIA to tell what info they got from those sessions. Either he's an idiot releasing more sensitive information, or the information is basically worthless, and he thinks we're all idiots who'll buy into his excuse.
Quote from: DGuller on April 21, 2009, 03:48:45 PM
Me too. Having him tried and convicted beforehand would be a bonus as well.
That shouldn't be a problem. The case against Gonzales is open and shut. The only thing missing is something to charge him with.
Quote from: Savonarola on April 21, 2009, 04:25:19 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 21, 2009, 03:48:45 PM
Me too. Having him tried and convicted beforehand would be a bonus as well.
That shouldn't be a problem. The case against Gonzales is open and shut. The only thing missing is something to charge him with.
Sounds like a job for Alberto Gonzales. That'll give him something to do before his hanging.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 21, 2009, 03:56:48 PM
I love the way Cheney's entire defense of the matter hangs on waiting for the gathered intel to be released. Does he really believe the public at large is stupid enough to believe "the ends justify the means?"
Also, he's accusing Obama of releasing national secrets by exposing how many potential abuses the past administration engaged in, but he's the one asking the CIA to tell what info they got from those sessions. Either he's an idiot releasing more sensitive information, or the information is basically worthless, and he thinks we're all idiots who'll buy into his excuse.
I think the intent is that the info they got was super-important at the time, but they used it to foil the sinister plot(R), and if we only knew about it howgladwewouldbetheytorturedpeoplecausethatswhatjackbauerwoulddo.
I would be interested in the details of the LA plot though.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 21, 2009, 06:15:18 PM
howgladwewouldbetheytorturedpeoplecausethatswhatjackbauerwoulddo.
:lol:
If it were really important they should be willing to sacrifice themselves on the altar of the law.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 21, 2009, 06:15:18 PM
I think the intent is that the info they got was super-important at the time, but they used it to foil the sinister plot(R), and if we only knew about it howgladwewouldbetheytorturedpeoplecausethatswhatjackbauerwoulddo.
I would be interested in the details of the LA plot though.
I'm well aware that that's the intention, but it's flimsy at best. If he was convinced it was actually legal, he would have made an argument based on that, and not just "but... but look what would have happened had we not bent the law!"
Quote from: Savonarola on April 21, 2009, 04:25:19 PM
That shouldn't be a problem. The case against Gonzales is open and shut. The only thing missing is something to charge him with.
:lol:
Is this thread against the CIA?
I have to tell you, the only CIA guy I have ever met was the one that aproved my top secret clearance.
The guy was an asshole. He asked me all the wrong question.
Think Neil interrogating me.
He wasn't military, no ex-military, but a guy that went into the agency out of college, and I could tell that he hated me.
Everything from my accent to my nationality through my service record.
These people live in their own world.
Politics and intelligence.
I don't want anything to do with either.
Well, you are certainly safe from at least one of those old chap :hug:
Quote from: Savonarola on April 21, 2009, 04:25:19 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 21, 2009, 03:48:45 PM
Me too. Having him tried and convicted beforehand would be a bonus as well.
That shouldn't be a problem. The case against Gonzales is open and shut. The only thing missing is something to charge him with.
How about perjury and obstruction of justice. Last I checked those were crimes.
This isn't new - the last administration (Mukasey) opened the criminal investigation into Gonzales. It's far from mere leftist tin foilery.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 22, 2009, 02:19:43 AM
Well, you are certainly safe from at least one of those old chap :hug:
:lmfao: Owned :lmfao:
Kevin
Quote from: Siege on April 22, 2009, 01:51:38 AM
Is this thread against the CIA?
I have to tell you, the only CIA guy I have ever met was the one that aproved my top secret clearance.
The guy was an asshole. He asked me all the wrong question.
Think Neil interrogating me.
He wasn't military, no ex-military, but a guy that went into the agency out of college, and I could tell that he hated me.
Everything from my accent to my nationality through my service record.
These people live in their own world.
Politics and intelligence.
I don't want anything to do with either.
Don't worry, you are about as far from intelligence as you can get.
I will tell you the CIA types are still leary of Israelis after the Pollard thingy.