US Attorney General Holder Appoints Special Prosecuter to Investigate CIA Abuses

[Sphere]

Mr Holder said: "I fully realise that my decision to commence this preliminary review will be controversial
"In this case, given all of the information currently available, it is clear to me that this review is the only responsible course of action for me to take."

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

US launches probe into CIA abuses

A special US prosecutor has been appointed to investigate allegations of abuse of terror suspects.
The announcement of John Durham's selection came as a report was published detailing the allegations of abuse by CIA agents.
Agents threatened to kill a key terror suspect's children and sexually assault another's mother, it is claimed.
The report was made in 2004 but only a heavily censored version appeared and a judge ordered fuller disclosure.
The justice department is reported to be reopening about a dozen prisoner abuse cases.
Also on Monday, President Barack Obama approved a new elite team to question terror suspects.
Republican anger
John Durham, who is already investigating the destruction of videotapes of CIA interrogations, was picked by US Attorney General Eric Holder.

“ [I will] stand up for those officers who did what their country asked and who followed the legal guidance they were given ”
Leon Panetta, CIA director


Mr Holder said: "I fully realise that my decision to commence this preliminary review will be controversial
"In this case, given all of the information currently available, it is clear to me that this review is the only responsible course of action for me to take."
Special prosecutors in the US are independent figures appointed to investigate the possible wrongdoing of government officials or agencies.
Senior Republicans have already expressed anger at the decision.
Nine signatories of a letter to Mr Holder said they were "deeply disappointed" at a decision that "could have a chilling effect on the work of the intelligence community".
'Aggressive'
The declassified document released by the justice department said that one agent told key terror suspect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that "we're going to kill your children" if there were further attacks on the US.

ANALYSIS
Kevin Connolly, BBC News, Washington
The question now that these startling depictions of the handling of those suspects are in the public domain is - what should happen next?
Barack Obama doesn't want to inflame anti-American feelings around the world but he doesn't want to alienate the professionals within America's own intelligence agencies. The problem is that below the cautious pragmatism of the White House rages a partisan political battle.
America's human rights lobby wants full disclosure, and on the left of the Democratic Party there is a real appetite for proceeding with further investigations. Conservatives, though, will argue that the harsh interrogations came at a desperate moment in American history. The interrogators could be cast as dedicated intelligence officers, ruthless only in the cause of protecting their fellow citizens.


Another agent allegedly told a second suspect the man's mother would be sexually assaulted in front of him. The agent has denied the allegation.
A third incident is said to have involved an agent pinching the carotid artery of a detainee. As the man was passing out, the agent shook him awake, then repeated the action twice.
Ahead of the document's release, CIA Director Leon Panetta wrote on the agency's website that the report was "in many ways an old story" and that he would make "no judgments on the accuracy of the report or the various views expressed about it".
He said it was clear that the CIA had "obtained intelligence from high-value detainees when inside information on al-Qaeda was in short supply".
Mr Panetta said the CIA had been "aggressive" in seeking regular legal advice from the department of justice on its techniques.
He said his primary concern was "to stand up for those officers who did what their country asked and who followed the legal guidance they were given. That is the president's position, too."
But Mr Panetta also said: "This agency made no excuses for behaviour, however rare, that went beyond the formal guidelines on counter-terrorism."
Earlier on Monday, deputy White House press secretary Bill Burton confirmed there would be a new interrogation team for key terror suspects.
Correspondents say Mr Obama was concerned at the number of different agencies involved and he wanted to bring them together. The new team will be called the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group.

This has been widely speculated about for the past few weeks, with leaks suggesting that Holder was in favor of appointing a special prosecuter, but Obama was agaisnt it for political reasons.

For those not familiar with the US legal system, special prosectutors appointed by the Attorney General are rare. They were set up to investigate highly sensative political cases (Watergate, the Lewinski Case, Iran-Contra etc.) and involve a prosecutor that has supeana power and answers only to a special panel of judges, not to the Departement of Justice. This gives them more power and freedom than in a normal investigation.

Most importantly it takes the possiblity of prosecution out of the control of Attorney General Holder (and indirectly the political leadership), and puts it in the hands of the special prosecutor.

[Big War Bird]

A gimmick to rally his base, he's going to have to cave on seizure of the health care industry which is upsetting his base. THe best way to get them back to make trash America's foreign policies and people, especially the CIA and military. Given a choice the average left wing nut would pick trashing America over getting a new entitlement.

[justicar5]

A gimmick to rally his base, he's going to have to cave on seizure of the health care industry which is upsetting his base. THe best way to get them back to make trash America's foreign policies and people, especially the CIA and military. Given a choice the average left wing nut would pick trashing America over getting a new entitlement.

Or it could be about ENFORCING THE LAW. Or does the law only apply to poor people?

[Big War Bird]

Or it could be about ENFORCING THE LAW. Or does the law only apply to poor people?

A prosecutor does not just enforce the law, he picks the laws he wants to enforce. Now I have a hard time believing that Holder or obama really want to publicy try an interrogator that roughed up a baby killing terrorist. The incongruity of putting away for 20 years someone how was protecting americans vs the image of releasing known killers from Gitmo would be quite the humilating scenario. I don't expect much of anything to come of this special prosecutor, it is just a way to get oppositon to his of his health care fiasco off the front page and put many of those same opponents on the defensive.

[justicar5]

A prosecutor does not just enforce the law, he picks the laws he wants to enforce. Now I have a hard time believing that Holder or obama really want to publicy try an interrogator that roughed up a baby killing terrorist. The incongruity of putting away for 20 years someone how was protecting americans vs the image of releasing known killers from Gitmo would be quite the humilating scenario. I don't expect much of anything to come of this special prosecutor, it is just a way to get oppositon to his of his health care fiasco off the front page and put many of those same opponents on the defensive.

No matter what the other guy did, torture is not justified and in fact is counter productive it doesn't work people say anything to make it stop, or suffer a mental breakdown and say nothing at all. Also remember that no one at Gitmo has been allowed a trial, they are all innocent in the eyes of the law until that happens so are not 'known' they are suspected killers, unless the US just became guilty until proven innocent? Try them, convict the guilty, sentence them, do not let this stain on american character stand, it removes all moral authority when dealing with people like NK or Iran, it brings you down to their level.

[Big War Bird]

No matter what the other guy did, torture is not justified and in fact is counter productive it doesn't work people say anything to make it stop, or suffer a mental breakdown and say nothing at all. Also remember that no one at Gitmo has been allowed a trial, they are all innocent in the eyes of the law until that happens so are not 'known' they are suspected killers, unless the US just became guilty until proven innocent? Try them, convict the guilty, sentence them, do not let this stain on american character stand, it removes all moral authority when dealing with people like NK or Iran, it brings you down to their level.

Spare me the sermonizing and try to understand the politics. The only good for obama is the appearance of action. Prosecuting these people would be a tremdous risk with no good outcome for him.

[Gaidin]

A gimmick to rally his base, he's going to have to cave on seizure of the health care industry which is upsetting his base. THe best way to get them back to make trash America's foreign policies and people, especially the CIA and military. Given a choice the average left wing nut would pick trashing America over getting a new entitlement.

Man the AG read the report long before the SNAFU with healthcare. Prosecutors don't get hired overnight, forget figuring out which one to choose for a special prosecutor case, which takes even more consideration. Most people are so used to the vocal nature of the prominent members of Bush's cabinet that when they get an AG that doesn't drop a whole lot until he drops the entire bomb on the press its like a totally different world, and it can't possibly be the real one amirite?

[Kjertesvein]

Interesting.

[Admiral Piett]

Dammit, I thought this was a probe about unauthorized operations.

[JP226]

Wonderfu, an Idealist, and a stupid fool taking the helm. Just what we need.

[Admiral Piett]

I believe there are many other things the Justice Department should be interested in the CIA for. The prison abuses is just a scapegoat.

[Dunecat]

"Hay liberals! Remember Bush? FETCH."

[B5C]

Didn't Obama said no on this crap?

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Didn't Obama said no on this crap?

Because he's an joke now, that's why.


Torture is very useful against these useless terrorists in my opinion.

[Gertrudius]

Because he's an joke now, that's why.


Torture is very useful against these useless terrorists in my opinion.

Actually, I sincerely doubt it's effectiveness. Simple psychology would point to the fact that people will say anything to stop their torment. Which means that you might get valuable info on rare occasions, but by the time you have sifted through everything, it will be old news. Why risk our moral standing when it's a rather unnecessary measure? And its a loud of bull to throw out phrases like "it's keeping us safe" and "there hasn't been a terrorist attack since 9/11" because correlation does not equate to causation. If you share those sentiments, show the intrinsic evidence to verify the causality.

Take it easy,

[Gaidin]

You say that like the politics changes the facts.

[Amry]

Now, it is entirely possible that a black-clad Inquisitor will hit Cheney with a book and later burn him at stake... but let's be honest here, I sincerely doubt that any good will come out of this. A report will be made saying "it's only a few bad apples, FREEDOM 9/11 TERROR blah blah blah", and everyone involved will get off scot-free. At best, probably some low-level flunky will be charged with a minor crime, and everyone will go, "see, justice has been done, now stop looking at Guantanamo and pay attention to Paris Hilton" (or some other tripe that passes off as news these days)

[Dr. Oza]

i wont vote for obama in '12 if dick cheney isnt in prison

[Last Roman]

don't worry, nothing real will come of it. Some people may get fired or suspended, but the system will remain intact. Sleep easy neo cons.

[Admiral Piett]

If torture were legal, then they didn't break the law. But the simple fact that many here are not acknowledging, is that they broke the law. Pure and simple. Personally, I also accept that this is a fiasco in order to earn political points. I realize the political nature of it, but it does not mean they didn't break the law. Personally, I think that Dick Cheney is the one who should be attacked, because he's the one that really started this whole mess in the first place. Attacking people following orders should point up the ladder to who gave the order, and who's the most responsible. Bush himself got in disputes with him privately over this. I wouldn't mind granting a lot of these guys immunity and light sentences if they actually pursue justice with Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld. The two of them screwed a lot of things up in the war on terror and Iraq. Hell we even saw the benefits of Gates' appointment and Cheney taking more of a backseat in the later part of Bush's second term. Bush by himself wasn't that bad. Pretty ignorant, yeah, but his Presidency wouldn't have been the mess it is now without the two of them.