August 24, 2009 4:36 PM

Holder Taps Prosecutor to Probe CIA Abuses

(CBS/AP)  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, and a new detainee interrogation unit is being created to be supervised by the White House, officials said Monday.

Federal prosecutor John Durham will be appointed by Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate alleged CIA abuses, said a Justice Department official, speaking only on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to discuss the matter.

Word of that decision came within minutes of the release of a newly declassified CIA document describing how interrogators threatened to kill the children of one Sept. 11 suspect and may have threatened to sexually assault the mother of another detainee.

The administration also announced Monday that all U.S. interrogators will follow the rules for detainees laid out by the Army Field Manual. That decision aims to end years of fierce debate over how rough U.S. personnel can get with terror suspects in custody.

Formation of the new interrogation unit for "high-value" detainees does not mean the CIA is out of the business of questioning terror suspects, deputy White House press secretary Bill Burton told reporters covering the vacationing President Barack Obama in Massachusetts.

Burton said the unit will include "all these different elements under one group" and will be located at the FBI headquarters in Washington.

The unit, to be known as the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, is to be led by an FBI official, with a deputy director from somewhere in the government's intelligence apparatus and members from across agencies. It will be directly supervised by the White House, but senior administration officials said the unit's agency bosses will make operational decisions.

Officials also said that in cases where terror suspects are transferred to other countries, the U.S. will work harder to ensure they are not tortured.

Durham, the man chosen for the investigation of possible interrogation abuses of the past, is already probing the destruction of videotapes of CIA questioning. He now will examine whether CIA officers or contractors broke laws in harsh handling of suspects.

"This is just an initial step," says CBS News chief legal analyst Andrew Cohen. "Just because there is now a prosecutor doesn't guarantee we'll see any CIA trials and certainly doesn't ensure any convictions. All of the problems that existed before-problems with classified information and inadmissible evidence-still remain."

"If the investigation generates a trial or two-and right now that is still a very big IF-we'd likely see a huge debate, in and out of court, over Bush-era interrogation policies, a debate the President very clearly said a few months ago that he didn't want to have," Cohen adds.

"I don't think that the Attorney General had much choice, politically anyway, but to take this step and launch this criminal investigation," Cohen says. "And even the CIA itself acknowledges that some of its agents, current and former, went beyond legal limits in interrogation. The question is whether crimes were committed and can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt."

"Durham is a dogged prosecutor, not nearly as flashy as his counterpart Patrick Fitzgerald, but clearly someone who should be able to swim in the deep waters that this investigation is going to track," Cohen notes. "He's going to have to battle not just any defendants he might charge but the CIA itself, and perhaps other intelligence agencies, who are going to try to protect their turf."

The structure of the new unit the White House is creating would depart significantly from such work under the previous administration, when the CIA had the lead and sometimes exclusive role in questioning al Qaeda suspects.

Obama campaigned vigorously against the Bush administration's interrogation practices in his successful run for the presidency. He has said more recently he didn't particularly favor prosecuting Bush administration officials in connection with instances of prisoner abuse. Obama still believes "we should be looking forward, not backward," Burton said Monday.

Nonetheless, the spokesman added, Obama believes the attorney general should be fully independent from the White House and he has full faith in Holder to make the decision on whether to reopen several such cases with an eye toward possible criminal prosecution. "He ultimately is going to make the decisions," Burton said of Holder.

CIA Director Leon Panetta said in an e-mail message to agency employees Monday that he intends "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," he said.

Panetta said some CIA officers have been disciplined for going beyond the methods approved for interrogations by the Bush-era Justice Department. Just one CIA employee contractor David Passaro has been prosecuted for detainee abuse.

"The CIA has played a vital role in the work of the task force, and its substantive knowledge will be essential to interrogations going forward," agency spokesman George Little said Monday.

The administration confirmed the new interrogation unit on the same day the CIA inspector general unveiled a report on Bush administration handling of suspects. A federal judge ordered the report to be made public in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

In the future, all questioning of terror suspects will fall under the rules of the Army manual.

The manual, last updated in September 2006, prohibits forcing detainees to be naked, threatening them with military dogs, exposing them to extreme heat or cold, conducting mock executions, depriving them of food, water, or medical care, and waterboarding.

Subjecting prisoner abuse cases to a new review and possible prosecution could expose CIA employees and agency contractors to criminal prosecution for the alleged mistreatment of terror suspects in the years after the Sept. 11 attacks.

© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 86 Comments
by sanity4u August 24, 2009 6:44 PM EDT
OK kids, time for bed.
Reply to this comment
by keystonebull August 24, 2009 5:53 PM EDT
Just think in 4 years they will be investigating Obama, and all his crooked administration and we will be leading them to jail. Come on 4 years.
Reply to this comment
by keystonebull August 24, 2009 5:51 PM EDT
Obama sucks anything, Obama stinks, Obama is a crook.
Reply to this comment
by keystonebull August 24, 2009 5:49 PM EDT
Obama SUCKS
Reply to this comment
by democracy1 August 25, 2009 2:04 PM EDT
Really "astute" comments from 2 morons.
by hungry1968-16 August 24, 2009 5:16 PM EDT
by McHineguy August 24, 2009 5:06 PM EDT

But, gee, these guys DID kill our children and we should be sorry that we ONLY threatened to kill theirs. What a crock.







We threatened to kill the children of the 9/11 perpetrators?

Why would we do that?
Reply to this comment
by antoniof123 August 24, 2009 4:37 PM EDT
About time and this will pretty much swing the voters away from neocons for a generation.
Reply to this comment
by hower4 August 25, 2009 6:10 AM EDT
No, most Americans will forget about it in a week or two. The same is NOT true of the countries you attacked.
by bradkt1 August 24, 2009 3:48 PM EDT
Those who argue that the CIA should not be held accountable (which it rarely, if ever, is) are basically saying that no matter what a CIA operative or contract does, they should get off scott-free. I say in response that we are not a nation of gangsters. What some of these CIA operatives did went even beyond the Bush-era guidelines. Those who relied on legal advice (no matter how flawed) stand an excellent chance of escaping criminal prosecution because they can credibly argue that they acted without any intent to violate the law and that it was reasonable for them to rely on the legal advice that they were given. Only in a very extreme case would a prosecutor even file criminal charges against a defendant when the facts indicated that the defendant had such a legal defense. Those who exceeded the scope of the legal advice they were given...or who acted prior to receiving any legal advice...did so at their peril. That is a longstanding legal principle.

As far as those who gave the legal advice are concerned, lawyers are always held to a higher standard under the law because they know the law better than the average citizen due to their legal training. I strongly believe that John Wu and some of the others should be prosecuted because they knew better and simply told their masters what they wanted to hear, ignoring longstanding prior legal precedents in the process. Remember, during the Watergate scandal, most of the wrongdoers who wound up being prosecuted were lawyers...except for the 5 Watergate burglars.
Reply to this comment
by fctex August 24, 2009 3:08 PM EDT
what will this accomplish? more bashing of the old Bush admin? Bush is history. the only thisn BO is accomplishing is giving away money and criticising the old admin and the Repubs. NO and the demos better start ACCOMPLISHING something meaningful. that and Holder just might be the most dangerous man in America today - what hidden agendas he's working is anyones' guess.
Reply to this comment
by Lawyers-Guns-n-Money August 24, 2009 11:59 AM EDT
by hower4 August 24, 2009 11:47 AM EDT
There you go, you proved exactly what you're made of. All you can do is post a very weak joke. Do you have a sensible opinion about ANYTHING?
========================================

Pssst, I figured out why Scots wear kilts. (So the sheep don't hear the zippers)
Reply to this comment
by Lawyers-Guns-n-Money August 24, 2009 11:38 AM EDT
by hower4 August 24, 2009 11:23 AM EDT
No, I think having 'backbone' is completely irrelevant. I don't have any. It's simply about being honest with yourself and being prepared to admit that you have been wrong, even for your entire life. If you have HONESTLY thought about the arguments and you STILL think you're right, then what else can you do but stand up for them?
====================================

I asked a Scot once if he sheared his sheep. He told me to find my own damn sheep!
Reply to this comment
by hower4 August 24, 2009 11:47 AM EDT
There you go, you proved exactly what you're made of. All you can do is post a very weak joke. Do you have a sensible opinion about ANYTHING?
See all 86 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook