Obama pardons CIA torture

you're actually surprised by this?

Actually, it's nothing like the situation you've described.

CIA agents are intelligent people, and they know the laws. They know the Uniform Military Code, the know our Federal laws in regards to these sorts of things, and they know the Geneva Convention.

Furthermore, the torture program was reverse engineered from a program that trained government agents and elite military personal (covert ops) to withstand torture should they be captured. That is-- they used the torture techniques used in that program to create the torture techniques in our interrogation program.

Torture was used by the British during the Revolutionary war, but it has been illegal since even BEFORE day one to torture prisoners of war, detainees, etc here in the USA.

The actions committed were illegal, and inexcusable.

I think there is a huge difference in the example you gave. The CIA agents are not acting on quick reflexes because of something they are being told. They are using information that they have taken months to gather and are making decisions in order to get more information. Unfortunately, that involves torture.

To use your example, it would be more like you see a fallen man dressed as a police officer, but after watching your local news, you find out that there is a criminal in the area impersonating a police officer. Then the other man comes running down the street and the one dressed in police attire tells you to shoot the running man. So, rather than kill anyone, you take the gun and make them both wait until other policemen arrive. No one has to be killed, and you are not taking the chance of hurting someone innocently.

The fact that the U.S. was involved in torturing suspects is the most disturbing thing that I have ever heard about our country. They should all be punished, starting at the top!

Clearly some have missed the salient point of my example. Of course my simplistic example is far different then the actual CIA case. The policeman in my example represents the authority figure that the DOJ and Bush administration actually portrayed. The theory is you are acting under the authority of policeman who assumes responsibility for your actions. The agents in question knew what they were doing but they also knew they were protected by the executive orders. That's the crux of their defense and any prosecutor would be hard pressed to prove otherwise. Hence, bringing a case would just be a galactic waste of time and recourses. No responsible prosecutor will bring a case that cannot be won.

FRY Bush.

Thanks eldamon for the rational response

current, no worries although it's a little scary when I become the voice of reason. Thanks for the recommendation.

Absolutely, get that HO.

I don't think you really have a good understanding of the breadth of this situation to be the "voice of reason."

For starters, these agents were PARDONED.

asherp, Perhaps you aren't grasping the definition of Pardoning. You see there have been no charges brought against anyone as of yet. What you're saying would be like getting a receipt for something you haven't purchased yet. I'm feeling pretty good about my grasp on this situation, all things considered.

"President Barack Obama absolved CIA officers from prosecution"

That's what pardoning is.

There were cases against CIA officers involved in torture by detainees who were tortured by them.

In other terms-- you don't know what you're talking about, eldamon.

Even if what you said was true, that would still in effect be a pardon, just as Bush pardoned himself for war crimes before leaving office regardless of the fact that he'd not been charged with war crimes.

You're just an apologist, and I don't respect that behaviour, no matter what your political views. Your political bias is causing you to justify unjustifiable actions.

asherp, You're in a little over your head here my friend. You're so concerned about being right and so passionate about the torture aspect you're failing to look at this objectively. Of course torture is a horrific thing and should never have been allowed. From a moral stand point and crimes against humanity there is no doubt the agents in question were wrong, pure and simple.

Step back now and stop for a moment. Stop trying to prove your point and show me how smart you are or how smart I'm not. As a simple matter of US law it would be extremely difficult to make the case against the agents. They have a clear estoppel defense - right or wrong it exist nonetheless.

You simply cannot tell someone in a subordinate position it is ok to do a thing then make that thing illegal and have them arrested. The Bush administration including the DOJ at the time is responsible and should be held accountable.

I completely agree the actions were heinous and reprehensible. It is an incredibly unfortunate twist of the law that makes if extremely difficult to SUCCESSFULLY prosecute the actual perpetrators of the torture itself. The architects of this horrible situation should be held accountable just as if they themselves tortured individuals.

The problem with your argument is that these agents, as active members of a branch of the Federal Government, would be expected to know Federal Law in regards to the duties of their position, International Law, and as most CIA agents are formerly military intelligence officers, the Uniform Military Code-- all of which are extremely explicit about the legality and definition of torture.

It should have been obvious to these agents that the orders coming down were illegal, and it was their responsibility at that point to either refuse those orders, as many soldiers refusing to serve in Iraq have done in order to then get the opportunity for challenging the orders in court, or to resign from their position. These agents did neither, and knowingly committed illegal acts.

And even if the acts were unbeknownst to them to be illegal, they were still illegal regardless, and the resources to find the legality were readily available to them-- just as they are to you and I.

If the Nuremberg Trials have taught us anything, it's that just because somebody above you orders you to do something, does not mean that you have to follow that order. You have a duty and a moral imperative to refuse illegal orders.

Furthermore, you're also ignoring the fact that if we tried these officers for their crimes, they may, in the interest of a plea bargain, reveal more information about orders that came down from above than what we already have.

Lastly, we HAVE the internal memos that clearly illustrate beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this entire endeavor came from the highest levels of government, within Oval Office, and we are failing to prosecute the members of the Bush administration who gave the orders, and Obama is keeping most of those memos secret, and that's the real story here.

We also know now that Congressional Leadership like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, knew about these memos authorizing torture, and sat in on hearings in regards to illegal wiretapping programs, as part of their responsibilities with congressional oversight, and not only that but many members of congress involved in government oversight knew about all of this long before the Democrats even came to power, and chose to do nothing.

And that's the real reason we're not prosecuting. Almost all are guilty, either of knowing and doing nothing, or being involved in the criminality themselves.

Agreed, the agents most certainly did know what they were doing was wrong and most likely illegal. Their choices were to disobey direct orders and effectively end their careers (which would have been the better choice) or carry out the orders under the guise of legality provided by the DOJ.

Logically and morally speaking you are completely correct and we are in agreement. As a matter of US law the decision not to prosecute the agents was prudent. However, they should whole heartedly prosecute the author(s) of the memos that facilitated this mess. They have no defense or excuse for their actions and members of Congress should be held accountable as well. Prosecution may not be applicable in the case of rogue Congress persons but certainly bringing their actions or inactions to light is in order.

we are all on the same side....except look @ this propoganda- come on.

I'm glad somebody else gets it...

He would have won, because the majority of Americans were sick of Republicans.

Obama only got 55% of the vote, and it was because he was moderate.

I think that's pretty much a fact.

Obama is NOT moderate, not by a looooong shot.

no, but there are more important battles (metaphorically) to fight in the present and war between the white house and the intelligence community would be very dangerous.

you can't run the whole 24K in the first 100 meters. (or something like that)

More important battles? More important than torture? I mean, seriously, either you're against the torture or you're for it...but jh64487 seems to be blowing whichever way Obama's going.

tell that to an iraqi who was tortured for years. i'm sure their reality isn't very ideal

the world is an ugly place. that's reality. I'd love to help the tibetans, the somalis, the people in darfur, the bolivians (who have helped themselves!), the North Koreans, the Burmese...

I'd love to help them all, all of them are struggling and dying due to unjust gov but you can only fight so many battles at once.

and believe me, i'd love to hang bush. literally. he's a war criminal and I'd throw the switch myself (i know big talk on a blog but just to give you an idea of where I stand). but it's simply an impractical issue right now when there is so much else to deal with. he released the memo's, that will result in further actions down the line.

I'm sorry, jh64487, but unless you're being sarcastic, that's simply a wad of bullshit.

The Law is the Law, and if we don't uphold it, we have anarchy posing as government-- aka tyranny.

Obama took time out of his day to pardon these people. If he had done nothing, the courts would have handled it.

meh, if you'd like to think so. most likely i think we'll see trials further down the line when things chill out a little bit. but a trial of senior intelligence officials would have been a disaster at this moment, regardless of the moral right and wrong of it.

tough decisions he's making everyday

"i think we'll see trials further down the line when things chill out a little bit."

when the hell is that? is obama gonna give out rainbows and back rubs too?

Sigh, jh6447 more important things like going on leno and havin a spot of tea with the queen, quit making pathetic excuses for your dear leader

jh64487 on pardoning war criminals: "Meh."

And John Hodgman on 'meh': "Did I ever tell you people how much I hate the word 'meh'? Nothing announces 'I have missed the point' more than that word."

perhaps more accurately it's about reality over idealism.

and compromise. something we haven't see in gov in decades.

maybe it's shocking to both sides.

Compromise is a funny word.

It can mean "meeting half way."

It can also mean "damaging the integrity or strength of an object, to the point of uselessness or near uselessness."

I think the second meaning is more appropriate, especially when applied to the Constitution.

what dictionary are you using?

i dont' think you understand my position. If this were the wild west and we weren't in the middle of global military and economic chaos I'd be all for the dems riding rough shod over these kids. fuck, they're all of them war criminals and should be shot but that includes the dems who initially voted to engage in an illegal war (if were going to hold everyone accountable).

and let anarchy reign eh?

"fuck, they're all of them war criminals and should be shot but that includes the dems who initially voted to engage in an illegal war (if were going to hold everyone accountable)."

life in prison will do

Reality over idealism? The CONSTITUTION IS THE REALITY. Keep making excuses. But yes, he does have alot on his plate right now... concerts at the White House with the Grateful Dead, photo ops, getting a dog, etc. Spare me. The defense of this on any side is downright scary.

JanforGore, you hit the nail on the head.

Absolutely, remember the Stanley Milgram experiments?

People will torture if ordered to do so and especially if they are absolved of guilt.

Yeah sounds like someone forgot about that whole Abu Ghraib thing. People were prosecuted and people went to prison. Looks like the Army does a better job of following the law than the president.

That's not true. Not all politicians are the same.

People just need to be better at shopping around for good politicians, and then sticking with them once they find them, instead of wussing out and voting for people who "can win."

Because now that Obama's won, what have we won?
More of the same.

I am sorry to say all the people running this past election were tools, idiots, and cons. I hoped obama was better but he was not (not all that surprising).

maybe in the past and the future we will eventually get some one running that has a little merit, but as for this past election no one was any good for the job.

You didn't look hard enough.

I don't know, Ron Paul, Kucinich.... they come to mind when people say that there were "better" politicians.

I found none of them worth it.

Its all a farce anyway, people need to step up and start making change themselves rather than voting on who they think will do it for them the quickest and cheapest.