Obama denies request to drop CIA abuse probe
By David Sunday Sep 20, 2009 12:00pm
An investigation into abuse of terrorism detainees won't be halted following a letter sent to President Barack Obama by seven former CIA directors. "I don't want to start getting into the business of squelching, you know, investigations that are being conducted," Obama told CNN's John King Sunday.
"I appreciate the former CIA directors wanting to look after an institution that they helped to build," Obama told CBS' Bob Schieffer in a separate interview.
The White House’s comments on the sensitive issue have been closely watched by supporters and opponents of further investigation into interrogations some have described as torture.
In August,
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y) urged Obama and his aides not to send signals about what Holder should do in terms of investigating the interrogations.“I have nothing to say to the president on this, except let Mr. Holder alone. As far as I know, they are," Nadler said at a convention of liberal bloggers and activists. “It would be….improper for the president to decide that there ought to be or ought not to be a special counsel, prosecutions or whatever.”
Login or Register to post comments.
Two problems with this whiny letter from the CIA:
"What these CIA Directors are urging would be completely improper. In fact, one could plausibly argue that where (as here) the DOJ determines that serious crimes might have been committed and an investigation needed, it would constitute obstruction of justice for the President to intervene by quashing any possibility of prosecution." - Greenwald, http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/0...
Do these directors want Obama impeached? Possibly.
"[I]t has been reported that public decrees earlier this year from White House political advisers (led by Rahm Emanuel) that there would be no CIA torture investigations infuriated DOJ officials because that's not the White House's decision to make. It was the DOJ's anger over this Emanuel-led usurpation of its responsibilities that led Obama to make publicly clear that decisions about prosecutions are the DOJ's to make, not his."
It isn't Obama's decision to make. The question remains, how can we ensure that his DOJ will not be politicized? Who watches them?
Then they are already politicized no matter what anyone says. Dem Prez, Dem DOJ. Rethug Prez, Rethug DOJ. How could they even remotely be unbiased and unpoliticized when they are appointed? It's one of the few things the Rethugs explained right. They serve at the pleasure of the President. If they don't do what he wants and how he wants it, he can get rid of them just as easily as he appointed them, can he not?
Well, yes and no.
The US Attorneys are apointed by the President, subject to confimation in the Senate. Which should keep real partisans of either stripe out of the positions. When a new president comes into office, it's not unusual for the president to fire many (if not all) of the US Attorneys early in their first term and appoint US Attorneys of their own liking.
The US Attorneys are supposed to be indepenent and unburdened by influence from the WH, basically, once they are appointed and confirmed, they are supposed to be left on their own. Of course, since they were appointed, it should be assumed that their priorities would be in line with the WH, be it sex crimes, drugs, white collar crime, illegal immigrants etc. But their application of the law should be equal reguardless of political affiliation.
On top of that, most underling employees are non-political career civil servants and are supposed to be hired without reguards to political affiliaton. All of this should create a DoJ resonably free of politicization. Usually, this has been the case.
Under Bush .43, his administartion fired a number of US Attorneys Bush had previously appointed because they hadn't been partisan enough. Also, Monica Goodling, a senior DoJ staffer, politicized the hiring of career employees and other appointed people within the DoJ.
The DoJ can be unbiased and non-politicized, but it's all too easy to corrupt ... see Bush.43 and Nixon.
1] Yes - that is the eventual goal by the right.
2] We can't. Especially when so many Bush loyalists are STILL in place in all levels of the govmint. That a total DOJ rightwing house cleaning was not done shortly after January is a SCANDAL.
President Obama's definitely on the right track. I was starting to doubt him after taking so long to investigate the war crimes but this interview has me taking a second look at him.
This news gives me a tiny bit of hope that we'll finally see some justice done.
It's about time!
The world awaits justice!
that Obama and Biden stand their ground. I'd love to see some justice done as well.
The problem I have with this investigation is that it's misdirected, and predictably, there will be political blowback from pursuing intelligence agents in the field that plays right into Republican hands. Instead of going after the people who crafted these policies in the Bush administration, Holder has decided to go after low hanging fruit. This only gives Republicans handy patriotic martyrs they can, and will, hold up to the gullible public. It also fails to insure that such things will not occur under future administrations if the policy makers themselves are not held to account.
This track falls into the "few bad apples" routine and fails to address the broader policy issues.
but I think maybe Holder is just doing the preliminary work necessary to get evidence for further investigations/prosecutions 'up the line.'
A real problem is that there is likely no CIA Director or President who's served since WWII who hasn't violated domestic and international laws or, at the very least, national policies. Who really thinks that GHWB, Nixon, Reagan and even Clinton or JFK did not approve/endorse clandestine operations that were illegal?
Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't the Attorney General the one who decides who gets investigated?
The AG is supposed to be INDEPENDENT of the executive branch, and is not supposed to be influenced by the President or congress.
Isn't that why the Alberto Gonzalez/Federal Judges situation was such a big deal? Because Gonzales wasn't independent - he was doing the political bidding of the president and his Republican buddies.
In other words, if Eric Holder is doing his job, he shouldn't CARE one way or the other what Obama thinks - because it's none of his business.
From j keesler's comment, above:
He has been the Public Options worst friend and the Blue Dogs best friend.
But, don't give up hope because this investigation is starting at very low levels. If it is any kind of investigation at all, and I think it will be, the trail can not help but lead up.
Don't get me wrong, I don't expect to see Cheney and Bush in shackles, as much as I would love that. But the gop defending torture at mid-terms could be an advantage.
problems would disappear completely if the AG was elected and not appointed. One of, if not the, most important legal position of authority in the nation, and the guy is selected by the President? Why? Of course he/she is always going to appear biased whether he/she is or not.
Nope, the problems would be amplified. DoJ is supposed to be confirmed by both parties and independent, not the president's tool and not big $$'s tool.
That's how they caught Nixon. Saturday night massacre anyone?
Eric Holder.
You sir serve us by applying the constitution as it applies to all people below the law.
We helped write and confirm the Convention Against Torture signed by President Ronald Reagan.
That convention calls for the detention of any suspect believed of being involved in torturing human beings post haste. This prevents a suspect from intimidating ,as the 9 former CIA chief wish to do, those who helped carry out the POLICY from being swayed. Dick Cheney went on national TV and admitted to being the top in the chain of command ,as we now know, to have known about the proposed use of a war crime ,waterboarding. Khalid Sheickh Mohammed was water boarded 183 times and one official claimed he lasted under water 1 1/2 minutes on the ,admitted on TV, orders from Dick Cheney ,if not higher up. You sir are obligated to take DICK CHENEY into custody now.
Will you execute the demands of the Convention Against Torture or resign ?
THERE IS NO MORE MIDDLE GROUND, OUR CONSTITUTION OR TREASON?
.
Q U E S T I O N:
When wing-nutter argue that Obama is on a political witch hunt...
... Is it because they wish Obama to be above the law?
What's a dictatorship to them, then?
.
projection.
should have stopped Ken Starr. I saw the interview this morning and can't recall if Shieffer prefaced his question with, "I know it would be illegal if you halted Mr. Holder's investigation; but if you had the power would you?"
Very ignorant letter.... and very ignorant question!
wont cow tow to the old guard. even though he may not go far enough, and investigate cheney, rummy, gonzales, even bush, this is a start....
More proof that opposition to Obama at these rallies is comes predominantly from racism.
http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2941
http://www.southparkstuff.com/images/stories/...
thanks miss_kitty and j keesler for the background story of attempted politicization of the DOJ by Rahm Emanuel and associates.
..... is that a lot of Americans, and Cheney was leading the charge, believe that torture is acceptable if it gets good results.
They need to have the ivestigations, if for nothing else, to show the Villiagers that torture is wrong, always and gets good results almost never.
Never !
It's that simple, isn't it? Nobody's above the law, because the minute anyone is, then there is no law, at least not one anyone would want to live under. Now only to see it happen.
I think as lawyers, Pres Obama and Eric Holder believe that, but on the other hand, I'm not sure they want to put America through a trial that could imprison the former VP maybe even Shrub.
They certainly deserve it, but I'm not sure the middle has the stomach for it. Hell, I would be happy if they would stand up in front of America and admit that what they did was wrong and take all responsibility for it.
!08 dead bodies during QUESTIONING of suspects plus a couple of missing kids ,I don't think I'm sorry cuts it. What is the difference between the suspects in Gitmo and the suspect Dick Cheney? NOTHING! Pick him up NOW! Strip him of his dignity and citizenship and all his worldly goods if found guilty just like the dead guys.
One more thing. Those who were tortured to death are as innocent as Kenny Lay because they died before sentencing or even a trial which Kenny Boy got.
its a criminal org, akin to the Mafia.
Someone in an official law enforcement capacity needs to issue a public statement as to whether our laws still exist, if they do still exist is it just some of them or all of them, when it's OK to ignore them, and who if anyone they still apply to. Because as things stand right now, I am really not sure about any of those things.
If homicide is still illegal, does that apply to just ONE homicide? If it's illegal to kill one person, is it less illegal to kill 100 people? Is kidnapping still illegal? Is kidnapping somehow no longer illegal if you kidnap 10,000 people? And of course, there's torture. Are ordinary citizens allowed to torture other ordinary citizens? If I have a really good reason to torture somebody, does that make it legal? Does it make a difference as to how good my reason is? Am I less likely to be prosecuted if I make sure to wear a uniform while I do it? Are crimes committed last week less illegal than crimes committed yesterday?
Somebody just issue a statement. We need to know what we can and can't do, since it's no longer clear.
Login or Register to post comments.