CIA Off The Hook For Past Waterboarding

Obama Won't Prosecute CIA Officials Who Used Harsh Interrogation Techniques During Bush Administration

(CBS/AP)  Seeking to move beyond what he calls a "a dark and painful chapter in our history," President Barack Obama said Thursday that CIA officials who used harsh interrogation tactics during the Bush administration will not be prosecuted.

The government released four memos in which Bush-era lawyers approved in often graphic detail tough interrogation methods used against 28 terror suspects. The rough tactics range from waterboarding - simulated drowning - to keeping suspects naked and withholding solid food.

Even as they exposed new details of the interrogation program, Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, offered the first definitive assurance that those CIA officials are in the clear, as long as their actions were in line with the legal advice at the time.

Mr. Obama said the nation must protect the identity of CIA contractors and employees "as vigilantly as they protect our security."

"We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history," the president said. "But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past."

Holder told the CIA that the government would provide free legal representation to CIA employees in any legal proceeding or congressional investigation related to the program and would repay any financial judgment.

"It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department," Holder said.

The CIA has acknowledged using waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning, on three high-level terror detainees in 2002 and 2003, with the permission of the White House and the Justice Department.

In the months after 9/11, three al Qaeda operatives - Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abd Al Rahim Al Nashiri - were all waterboarded by the CIA, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Orr.

The memos claimed waterboarding worked. Abu Zubaydah, for example, identified Mohammed or KSM as the 9/11 mastermind, reports Orr and KSM in turn gave interrogators details of potential plots including a plan to launch a second wave of attacks.

Former CIA Director Michael Hayden said waterboarding has not been used since, but some human rights groups have urged Mr. Obama to hold CIA employees accountable for what they, and many Obama officials and others around the world, say was torture.

Further, the statements accompanied the Justice Department's release of four significant Bush-era legal opinions governing - in graphic and extensive detail - the interrogation of 14 high-value terror detainees using harsh techniques beyond waterboarding, the officials said. One of the memos was produced by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in August 2002, the other three in 2005.

---

Read more about the release of the memos.

---

The memos, released to meet a court-approved deadline in a lawsuit against the government in New York by the American Civil Liberties Union, detail the dozen harsh techniques approved for use by CIA interrogators, the officials said. One memo also specifically authorized a method for combining multiple techniques, a practice human rights advocates argue crosses the line into torture even if any individual methods does not.

"It was carrot and stick for the Justice Department toward Bush officials," said CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen. "The good news for the architects of our torture policies is that they DOJ apparently will not prosecute them. The bad news for Bush officials is that the DOJ further embarrassed them by releasing more appalling torture memos dating back to 2002."

( Read a column by Andrew Cohen criticizing the Obama administration's move to protect Bush administration torture advocates from prosecution or investigation.)

The Obama administration last month released nine legal memos, and probably will release more as the lawsuit proceeds. But the four released Thursday represent the fullest, and now complete, accounting by the government of the methods authorized and used, the officials said.

Those include keeping detainees naked for long periods, keeping them in a painful standing position for long periods, and depriving them of solid food. Other tactics included using a plastic neck collar to slam detainees into walls, keeping the detainee's cell cold for long periods, and beating and kicking the detainee. Sleep-deprivation, prolonged shackling, and threats to a detainee's family were also used.

The CIA also sought permission to put suspects in a box and then fill the box with insects.

Among the things not allowed in the memos were allowing a prisoner's body temperature or caloric intake to fall below a certain level, because either could cause permanent damage, said senior administration officials. They discussed the memos on condition of anonymity to more fully describe the president's decision-making process.

The ACLU suit has sought to use the Freedom of Information Act to shed light on the treatment of prisoners - even though the Bush administration eventually abandoned many of the legal conclusions and the Obama administration has gone further to actively dismantle much of President George W. Bush's anti-terror program.

Mr. Obama has ordered the CIA's secret overseas prisons known as "black sites" closed and ended so-called "extraordinary renditions" of terrorism suspects if there is any reason to believe the third country would torture them. He has also restricted CIA questioners to only those interrogation methods and protocols approved for use by the U.S. military until a complete review of the program is conducted.

Also Thursday, Holder formally revoked every legal opinion or memo issued during Bush's presidency that justified interrogation programs.

The documents have been the subject of a long, fierce debate in and outside government over how much officials should say.

The Bush administration held the view that the president had the authority to claim broad powers that could not be checked by Congress or the courts in order to keep Americans safe. Obama and Holder, among others, have said that the use of such unchecked powers has actually made Americans less safe, by increasing anti-U.S. sentiment, endangering American troops when captured and handing terrorists a recruiting tool.

"Enlisting our values in the protection of our people makes us stronger and more secure," Mr. Obama said in his statement.

Even so, the officials described the president's process of deciding how much to release in response to the suit as very difficult. Over four weeks, there were intense debates involving the president, Cabinet members, lower-level officials and even former administration officials.

Mr. Obama was concerned that releasing the information could endanger ongoing operations, American personnel or U.S. relationships with foreign intelligence services. CIA officials, in particular, needed reassuring, the officials said.

Former CIA Director Michael Hayden said the Obama administration is endangering the country by releasing the memos. Hayden told The Associated Press the release will give terrorists a precise guide for what to expect in a CIA interrogation if those methods are ever approved for use again.

But in the end, the view of the Justice Department prevailed, that the FOIA law required the release and that the government would be forced to do so by the court if it didn't do so itself, the officials said.

In his statement, Mr. Obama said he was reassured about the potential national security implications by the fact that much of the information contained had already been widely publicized - including some of it by Bush himself - and by the fact that the program itself no longer exists.

He said "exceptional circumstances surround these memos and require their release" and does not change his determination to keep other intelligence operations secret and information about them classified.

But, said Mr. Obama, "Withholding these memos would only serve to deny facts that have been in the public domain for some time. This could contribute to an inaccurate accounting of the past, and fuel erroneous and inflammatory assumptions about actions taken by the United States."

Those assurances are not likely to innoculate Obama against criticism from conservatives. Last month, Vice President Dick Cheney said, for instance, that Obama's decisions to revoke Bush-era terrorist detainee policies will "raise the risk to the American people of another attack."

[kathypatt]

While I do not agree with Waterboarding, what these terrorists did to our citizens was much worse. We were seeing the beheadings of our soldiers, marines and citizen contractors who were over there, soldiers and marines who were totured beyond recognition, etc. We are not dealing with a rational enemy this time and no matter what we do whether we prosecute Americans for their part in this type of torture or we don't, the results ot their treatment will still be the same when they capture or soldiers or marines.

Maybe it's time that we don't care how we treat these prisoners who if they were released would start doing all they can to plan another attack on our country. Why do we care about them? They have such a deep hatred of our country and values. We now have a president who has decided a terrorist group (Hamas) should be recognized as a part of government. To me, even as a moderate, is very scary. I think that everyone has to think back on 9/11 and ask themselves "What if one of my family members had been in the World Trade Center or the Pentagon that day?" I'm sure there isn't one family of those people who share your view that we should start prosecuting the people who were only carrying out the orders of their government. I'm sure all those families are thinking that the people that they caught are getting just what they deserve.

[PENWEL]

NO-ONE WHOEVER. IS IMMUNE FROM THE LAWS OF THE LAND IN A CIVILIZED SOCIETY. ONE WHO IS JUSTLY FIGURED AS BREAKING A LAW OF THE LAND, WHETHER THE HIGHEST OFFICIAL OR THE LOWEST PEASANT, SHOULD BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF THE LAW UNTILL JUSTLY PROVEN OTHERWISE. IF A LAW IS KNOWINGLY BROKE WITH A SLAP ON THE WRIST TO THE ACCUSED, FOR POLITICAL REASONS OR WHATEVER. THAT GOOD LAWS FUTURE, IS IN JEOPARDY. TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT. A GOOD LAW TRAMPLED ON AND THEN IGNORED...

[simon2013]

For some more discussion on this, check out:

http://polswatch.wordpress.com/2009/04/18/prosecutions-must-follow-the-release-of-the-torture-memos/

[TheMasses01]

Oh, but he crammed that "stimulous" through, a dangerous and delicate situation. It was determined that he doesn't need "full" DC backing or all the "peoples" approval for that.
Posted by promaclaura
---------------------------------
I agree.
And Barry should be brought to justice now.

[promaclaura]

I do so wish he would call right now for a commission, and prepare to bring Bush to justice, it is just that I also see he is in a dangerous and delicate situation on that, and doesn't yet see the backing he needs in DC, or from the people.
Posted by brianbwb-2009 at 8:41 AM : Apr 17, 2009

Oh, but he crammed that "stimulous" through, a dangerous and delicate situation. It was determined that he doesn't need "full" DC backing or all the "peoples" approval for that.

[fedup12]

Let me see...who is right? And why do the libs insist the US is always wrong and Europe and others are always right?
Posted by mortar29

The United States needs to stop worrying about what other nations think right now and focus on the United States. Period.

________

Now if we can get the libs onboard!
Posted by mortar29 at 8:45 AM : Apr 17, 2009

What are you talking about. Its the recons that think we have to be the worlds police. I totally agree that we have to start worrying about America and let some of the other countries start to pick up the slack.

[promaclaura]

I could be wrong on this, but I see a strategy here. Mr. Obama knows he doesn't yet have enough support to do the right thing, so he says he won't prosecute. Same with gun regulations, you no doubt notice how loudly the neos protest every word the president says, even if they agreed with the exact same thing under Bush. You might also notice that the media is allowing the Rush Limbaugh types to spread any lies they want, further inflaming resentment among the troglodytes.

Not prosecuting is, at any rate not however a pardon, and by law, pardons can only be extended after a person has been found guilty of a crime (notwithstanding Ford's illegal pardon of Nixon).

The statute of limitations does not expire for war crimes, or crimes against humanity, so it appears that President Obama is either waiting for an overwhelming outcry for trials, or he is leaving it to a future prosecutor, and dealing with other important matters like the economy, that won't get him assassinated, in effect doing what good he thinks he can, while he can, and staying away from truly dangerous and divisive issues (he himself being a divisive issue, as you may have noticed)

Again we are dealing with people who caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands on the basis of lies, to make their money. President Kennedy died for much less, and he was only the first Catholic President, how much less these people would regard the lives of a "Black" family of 4?

I do so wish he would call right now for a commission, and prepare to bring Bush to justice, it is just that I also see he is in a dangerous and delicate situation on that, and doesn't yet see the backing he needs in DC, or from the people.
Posted by brianbwb-2009 at 8:41 AM : Apr 17, 2009

It's funny how posters are still trying to make up excuses for Obama's decision. How about this one: He lied during the campaign and never had any intention of bringing charges against the Bush Administration because in reality all the charges are trumped up, mainly Democrat talking points to win an election!

Jeez, you guys will grab on to anything to give Obama a pass on this. Wake up people, Pelosi buried charges against Bush along time ago and with good reason, they don't have a case. People have been brainwashed by the Democrat's AND worked up into a frenzy for "blood" by the liberal media. Well it worked, they won the election and now they want to say "oh, never mind all those accusations we spewed on a constant basis, we're gonna let them go" (gee golly whiz and out of the goodness of their heart, puke, puke, puke). Brian, you seem to think that Obama is biding his time, yeah right, the only thing he was biding was how to break the news and still keep his sheep gullible. The release of the memos at the same time as letting prosecution drop was for a reason, he wants you to remain angry at Bush and "invested in the memos" rather than on his own actions. Maybe they(the White House) shot the Rush/Cheney talking point load a little too soon. I bet they wish they had that distraction right now.

I little reminder of what Obama promised and what he is doing: continuing Iraq in Bush fashion, surging in Afghanistan (ok'd by libs though), illegal wiretapping (up and running), torture prosecutions (bye, bye). When are you people going to smell the coffee and realize you've been conned?

[starleo146]

Forget the far right and the far left. I see no relevance from either group. But Obama, reegardless of polls, needs to sjit or get off the pot on this issue. He ended the torture claiming unconstitutionality. If thats so he needs to back that up by prosecuting them. He cannot play it both ways. That is turnoing off both parties as I see it.
Posted by Stuart2560 at 9:01 AM : Apr 17, 2009
+ report abuse + permalink

I have agreed with your comments and i wish everyone thought your way I am an independent I vote for republicans or democrats and I do feel Obama is wrong on this issue and have written so to him he has made it clear he thinks torture is wrong and should not be tolerated so something is keeping him from going the whole way. I think his skin will get tougher as he goes on but he has to weigh this very carefully

[starleo146]

brianbwb-2009 I agree with you. As far as ground level protests, like I said, I e-mailed Obama a lengthy call for him to take a stand. Thats all I can do at the moment and I doubt he will ever see that e-mail. But I tried.
Posted by Stuart2560 at 9:07 AM : Apr 17,

So did I and we all need to let him see constitutionally he is wrong on this one.

[starleo146]

I do so wish he would call right now for a commission, and prepare to bring Bush to justice, it is just that I also see he is in a dangerous and delicate situation on that, and doesn't yet see the backing he needs in DC, or from the people.
Posted by brianbwb-2009 at 8:41 AM : Apr

I wish every one who has a opinion on this would state that in a e-mail to the president himself, let him hear what we the people think about this. I feel he will listen. White House .gov look for link contact us

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by Stuart2560

Agreed, but Olbermann is only one person, and a talking head at that. I think the president needs to see some serious ground-level protests, so he can then say "in the interests of maintaining peace" or some such excuse (while inwardly saying "bout G.D. time the people got behind this) If really big audience holders like say, Oprah were to say the same, I think he would begin to pay attention. if the rest of the mainstream news (I don't count FoX) has more of such, I think he will begin to sense the mandate.

Then there is the matter of DC, which is like ancient Rome, the senate can kill, and only three months in, there is no way he knows who he can trust when the rubber hits the road.

Also, think about this, at 10 billion per month, the war profiteers can break off half of one month, and that kind of money can buy both houses, and have anyone who won't play along liquidated. make no mistake, we are dealing with people who make the Corleone family look like Ozzie and Harriet. they already murdered more than half a million Iraqisn and more than 4,000 US soldiers and all fir lies.

[starleo146]

Obama I really feel is a honest person, as honest as a president can actually be. He is also a constitutional lawyer, that is why I personally cannot for the life of me understand why he doesn't get a independent prosecutor and let him dog away and just see what was done. I do not see why he says America has been through enough we cannot keep looking back, we cannot go forward till, we clean up the past, why can't he see that.We are all raised to know right from wrong, and just a president and vice president should not be able to make us do wrong it just isn't right.

[jwind1]

I think we have all said some stupid things in our day, it is just how we learn from those stupid things that seperates us.
Posted by stimporksuks

agreed
Posted by Stuart2560 at 8:38 AM : Apr 17, 2009


agreed

[brianbwb-2009]

"... brianbwb-2009 I understand the point you are making. But the point I am making reagarding this is that Obama cannot have it both ways. Either it WAS illegal or it WAS NOT. He said it was so he cannot condem Bush and his admins. actions but at the same time play the good ole' boy club mentality and pardon them. It's one or the other." Posted by Stuart2560

I could be wrong on this, but I see a strategy here. Mr. Obama knows he doesn't yet have enough support to do the right thing, so he says he won't prosecute. Same with gun regulations, you no doubt notice how loudly the neos protest every word the president says, even if they agreed with the exact same thing under Bush. You might also notice that the media is allowing the Rush Limbaugh types to spread any lies they want, further inflaming resentment among the troglodytes.

Not prosecuting is, at any rate not however a pardon, and by law, pardons can only be extended after a person has been found guilty of a crime (notwithstanding Ford's illegal pardon of Nixon).

The statute of limitations does not expire for war crimes, or crimes against humanity, so it appears that President Obama is either waiting for an overwhelming outcry for trials, or he is leaving it to a future prosecutor, and dealing with other important matters like the economy, that won't get him assassinated, in effect doing what good he thinks he can, while he can, and staying away from truly dangerous and divisive issues (he himself being a divisive issue, as you may have noticed)

Again we are dealing with people who caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands on the basis of lies, to make their money. President Kennedy died for much less, and he was only the first Catholic President, how much less these people would regard the lives of a "Black" family of 4?

I do so wish he would call right now for a commission, and prepare to bring Bush to justice, it is just that I also see he is in a dangerous and delicate situation on that, and doesn't yet see the backing he needs in DC, or from the people.

[jwind1]

hungry now has confused look on his face....trying to figure out whether you bashed Bush or not so he knows how to respond
Posted by jwind1 at 8:28 AM : Apr 17,

Bush has nothing to do with this discussion of state prisoners.
Posted by Stuart2560 at 8:30 AM : Apr 17, 2009

exactly....thus hungrys confused look

[jwind1]

Let me see...who is right? And why do the libs insist the US is always wrong and Europe and others are always right?
Posted by mortar29 at 8:27 AM : Apr 17, 2009


because bill maher and sean penn said so

[jwind1]

hungry1968-15 I like your spirit on the boards but you just don't get it here. People are trying to reason with you but you are resisting. They are right.
Posted by Stuart2560 at 8:24 AM : Apr 17, 2009


hungry now has confused look on his face....trying to figure out whether you bashed Bush or not so he knows how to respond

[brianbwb-2009]

"...But how many ground level CIA agents are privy to the content of UN laws / charters?"
Posted by hungry1968-15

All of them. If I can so easily obtain this (and I am in Singapore) why can they not? Or one might ask, why is this not taught in their training?

[hungry1968-15]

I guess execution isnt punishment either...we are just separating the inmate from his life.
Posted by mortar29 at 8:17 AM : Apr 17, 2009





Why do you think that 43 out of 50 states DO NOT execute their inmates, and the ones that do usually have inmates on death row for 10 - 20 years appealing their sentences as being "cruel and inhuman"?

If the object was to PUNISH THEM, then execution would be used for EVERYTHING from rape, to murder, to robbery, to arson, to............

[hungry1968-15]

UN convention against torture

Article 2

"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever" may be invoked to justify torture, including war, threat of war, internal political instability, public emergency, terrorist acts, violent crime, or any form of armed conflict.] Torture cannot be justified as a means to protect public safety or prevent emergencies. Neither can it be justified by orders from superior officers or public officials. The prohibition on torture applies to all territories under a party's effective jurisdiction, and protects all people under its effective control, regardless of citizenship or how that control is exercised. Since the Conventions entry into force, this absolute prohibition has become accepted as a principle of customary international law.

I post the article in it's entirety so you can see the context, but the part relevant to your question is the sentence, " Neither can it be justified by orders from superior officers or public officials."
Posted by brianbwb-2009 at 8:12 AM : Apr 17, 2009





I agree.

But how many ground level CIA agents are privy to the content of UN laws / charters?