Dems Laud, Republicans Slam CIA Interrogation News
(AP / CBS)
The Obama administration is assigning a veteran U.S. prosecutor to begin a criminal probe of CIA questioning of terror suspects during the Bush administration, it was announced Monday. The White House also confirmed it is creating a new terror suspects interrogation unit that it will directly supervise. The developments came on the same day a 2004 report from the CIA inspector general was released revealing interrogation techniques like threatening the suspects' families.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the inspector general's report provides "conclusive evidence" that interrogators overstepped the legal boundaries in place and that their techniques of "torturing detainees in U.S. custody did not make us safer."
"The conduct that is documented in this report illustrates the perils of the dark road of excusing torture down which the Bush administration took this nation," he said. "I also believe it underscores why we need to move forward with a Commission of Inquiry, a nonpartisan review of exactly what happened in these areas, so that we can find out what happened and why. Who justified these policies? What was the role of the Bush White House? How can we make sure it never happens again? Information coming out in dribs and drabs will never paint the full picture."
Though he would ultimately like to see a nonpartisan commission formed to examine the interrogations, Leahy said in a separate statement that Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to investigate the issue should bring a measure of accountability to the American people.
"I am grateful that the Justice Department is finally being led by an independent Attorney General who is willing to begin investigating this dark chapter in our country's history," he said. "I had no doubt that he would put the interests of the law ahead of politics, and he has demonstrated that."
Similarly House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) praised today's news but called for an independent, bipartisan commission to evaluate the broader issues raised by the Bush administration's "brutal torture program."
"Today's release -- even of these still heavily redacted materials -- is thus an important step toward restoring the rule of law in this country, and rebuilding our credibility around the world," he said. "But much more remains to be done. The gruesome acts described in today's report did not happen in a vacuum. It would not be fair or just for frontline personnel to be held accountable while the policymakers and lawyers escape scrutiny after creating and approving conditions where such abuses were all but inevitable to occur."
However, Republicans took an opposite view of the administration's actions. Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement that creating a task force of interrogation specialists could be worthwhile but runs the risk of becoming politicized. He said it represented a lack of faith in the intelligence community.
"What does the White House have against Leon Panetta?" asked Bond. "This bizarre move is a vote of no confidence in not only the terror-fighters who have kept us safe since 9-11 but their very own CIA Director."
Bond also called the White House's supervision terrorist interrogations a power grab.
"Chrysler and Citigroup apparently weren't enough," he said. "Now the White House is taking over the CIA and how we interrogate Usama bin Laden. Even the Democrats' favorite boogeyman Dick Cheney did not take over terrorist interrogations."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, suggested in a statement that the Bush White House, in fact, should have intervened -- and that the CIA inspector general was the only official during the Bush administration to conduct serious oversight of the interrogation program.
"The Inspector General's report raised serious concerns about the program, and I believe this is one of the reasons that CIA leadership later attempted to undermine his independence," he said. "When the Administration withholds information from Congress, the Office of the Inspector General is the only entity providing objective oversight of sensitive intelligence programs, and that is why it is vital that the independence of the Inspector General be guarded."
Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, issued a statement saying that an increased focus on America's past counterterrorism efforts will distract from current efforts.
"At the same time the situation in Afghanistan is getting decidedly worse and the Taliban is advancing, the Obama Justice Department is launching an investigation that risks disrupting CIA counterterrorism initiatives," he said. "This is the last thing that should happen when the president is sending more troops into harm's way, and the nation's top military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, said over the weekend that al-Qaeda still remains a threat to America and our interests abroad."
Hoekstra's statement echoed arguments made by nine Republican senators who sent a letter to Holder last week, asking him to refrain from starting an investigation.
"The country would be better served if the Justice Department refocuses its priorities and allocates its resources to pressing matters — such as prosecuting the terrorists responsible for the September 11 attacks — instead of contemplating legal action against the men and women who have dedicated their lives to protecting this country," they wrote.
In an e-mail sent to his agency today, CIA Director Leon Panetta said he would stand up for the officers who followed the legal guidance they were given.
More Coverage:
CIA Threatened To Kill Suspect's Children
Holder Taps Prosecutor to Probe CIA Abuses
New Unit Will Question Key Terror Suspects
Panetta Defends CIA in E-Mail to Agency
W.H.: CIA Not Out of Interrogation Biz
Andrew Cohen: 10 Things About the CIA's Bad Day
Washington Unplugged; "Crisis Moment" for the CIA
Popular in Politics
- Obama prom pictures surface 130 Comments
- Is President Obama ending the war on terror? 268 Comments
- IRS' Lerner was asked to resign, refused: GOP Sen. 140 Comments
- Obama forgets to salute while boarding Marine One Play Video
- Now, some unions upset over Obamacare
- IRS official Lois Lerner placed on leave 130 Comments
- GOP Rep.: Obama elected because of Reagan's immigration reforms
- Rand Paul uses 2016 bully pulpit to push Obama on drones
Numerous civil rights organizations say that it is not much better there now than Gitmo was a few years back.
All anyone has to do is Google "obama bagram guantanamo"
Three detainees there fought and won because a judge struck down them being detained there indefinitely.
Numerous detainees there at Bagram are NOT EVEN FROM AFGHANISTAN.
Obama is such a hypocrite.
Like I said in my previous post up above this one, Obama threw lefties a bone... and they are ignorantly chewing away on it.
"Chrysler and Citigroup apparently weren't enough," he said. "Now the White House is taking over the CIA and how we interrogate Usama bin Laden. Even the Democrats' favorite boogeyman Dick Cheney did not take over terrorist interrogations."
PRETTY DAMMM WEAK, BOND!
You would think someone with the wherewithall to get elected 'SENATOR' would come up with a more convincing argument. Oh yeah, I forgot, Missouri.
Clearly, though, there have been serious problems in the agency. There has been and still are very loyal, dedicated, patriotic Americans in the CIA. But, they are not always the persons in charge. CIA Directors lied to every president, Democrat or Republican, since Harry Truman. The reason we didn?t know that is because the agency has been wrapped in secrecy since it was founded. The American people have never been privy to anything that went on inside what we all thought was the world?s best intelligence agency. That has led to a complete misunderstanding of the relationship between the CIA and ALL presidents since the agency was first established under President Truman. I know I mistakenly thought that there was a strong bond of trust between the CIA and every president. I think most Republicans, for example, would be shocked to learn what Republican presidents have said about the agency. I was surprised to learn that Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush all had little regard for the agency---including George H.W. Bush who was a former CIA Director. That, and far more, is why everyone needs to read the books mentioned above.
The Attorney General must allow the CIA investigation to go forward even though he doesn?t want to do it. It is the only way to restore trust between the agency and the American people and between the agency and the U. S. Government. We MUST have excellent intelligence agencies that have sound data to report to our government, if our government, in turn, is to make sound foreign policy decisions.
And Obama is going back on yet another promise. He said in the past that he would not direct the Justice Department to investigate past interrogation procedures, and so on, nor allow the Justice Department themeslves to take this route.
Obama also said that he was going to get rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and get rid of DOMA. Obama could have had the Justice Department exercise caution and deference concerning DOMA, or even have them stay neutral. But he did neither of those. Instead, he did a 180 and the Justice Department brief actually defended DOMA and compared same-sex marriage to... well, you know what.
So those who defend Obama in this situation by saying that it's just a case of Obama putting DOMA on the back-burner are themeselves putting up a smoke screen. If Obama just wanted to put this on the back burner for now, he could have asked the Justice Department to exercise caution and deference then and stay neutral on this. If Obama was just going to put this on the back-burner, the Justice Department would not have issued a brief ripping same-sex marriage. Yet libs keep falling for his lies and games.
On top of all of that, Obama did the mother-lode of 180's: He actually expanded warrantless wiretapping.
Now, recently, Obama sent out Kathleen Sebelius and Gibbs to test the waters/float a trial balloon, to see what lefties would say if the public option was dropped.
Each broken promise (the aforementioned are but a few of many), plus the testing of the waters by Gibby and Co., has led to anger on the left. And so we see another bone being thrown to them.
That, and this may be an attempt by the White House at distraction, given that the White House just in the past few days admitted that the unsolicited Axelspam recently sent out was sent out by a Minnesota-based firm that was hired by the White House in January. The White House (before their recent admission) said that the spam was probably sent out by third parties, and they they were just innocent bystanders.
Now we find out that GovDelivery was provided the emails BY the White House. Their FAQ says that they get email lists FROM their clients.
And this was all done - apparently - at taxpayer expense.
Make a note of it.
You can say, I told you so.
Look for Obama's approval rating to drop more.