Obama doesn't rule out charges over interrogations

[larrymeyer]

If he gets away with this every agent (CIA) or Military Intelligence should turn in a resignation as he's taken away the tools to get this men to talk. He should also release the memos that say how many lives were saved because of this type of interrogation techniques

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090421/...ty_usa_obama_5

Obama doesn't rule out charges over interrogations

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama left the door open on Tuesday to prosecuting some U.S. officials who laid the legal groundwork for harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects during the Bush administration.

Obama also said he would not necessarily oppose an effort to pursue a "further accounting" or investigation into the Bush-era interrogation program that included waterboarding, sleep deprivation, forced nudity, shoving people into walls and other methods.

The stance marked a shift for the Obama administration, which has emphasized it does not want to dwell on the past with lengthy probes into policies put in place by President George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Controversy has erupted across the political spectrum over last week's release by Obama of classified memos detailing the program to question al Qaeda suspects.

Human rights groups say the tactics such as waterboarding -- a form of simulated drowning -- constituted torture and violated U.S. and international laws.

In a question-and-answer session with reporters on Tuesday, Obama reiterated his vow not to prosecute CIA interrogators who relied in good faith on legal opinions from the Bush administration condoning the harsh methods.

However, Obama did not rule out charges against those who wrote the opinions justifying the methods used on captured terrorism suspects.

"With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws, and I don't want to prejudge that," Obama said after meeting Jordan's King Abdullah.

"I think that there are a host of very complicated issues involved there," Obama said.

DIFFERING REMARKS

The comment seemed at odds with the position offered on Sunday by Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who told ABC that the president did not believe the authors of the legal opinions should be prosecuted.

"Those who devised the policy, he believes that they were, should not be prosecuted either," Emanuel said, adding that it was not a "time for retribution."

When pressed by reporters on the contradiction, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs brushed aside questions on whether the president had had a change of heart.

"Instead of referring to what anybody might have said ... it's important to refer to what the president said," Gibbs said.

Human rights advocates and their supporters in the U.S. Congress want to expose and prosecute those responsible for abuses.

But Obama also has received scathing criticism from some conservatives over the release of the interrogation memos.

Among the most outspoken critics has been former Vice President Dick Cheney, who accused Obama of putting the country in danger by disclosing CIA secrets. He contends the harsh interrogations yielded valuable information that has helped keep the United States safe.

Several lawmakers in Obama's Democratic Party are calling for public investigations into the program and contend Obama should not rule out prosecutions under anti-torture laws.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, welcomed Obama's latest comments about a possible inquiry as a "step forward."

Feinstein has urged Obama to withhold judgment on prosecutions, pending a closed-door review by her committee of the interrogation program.

But Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell derided Obama's approach on the interrogation issue as muddled.

"We're sort of interested to know what is the policy or the position of the administration because now it seems to be somewhat confusing," he told reporters.

In addition to opposing domestic prosecution of CIA interrogators, the Obama administration has said it would try to shield employees from overseas tribunals.

That view was a challenge to Spain, where a judge is mulling possible criminal action against six Bush administration officials including former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Cheney's senior aide David Addington, and former Justice Department lawyer John Yoo.

Obama said he would not necessarily oppose a U.S. panel to investigate the interrogation program.

But he said he would prefer to see such an inquiry take place outside of the "typical hearing process" of the U.S. Congress, where the issue could become politicized.

"So if and when there needs to be a further accounting of what took place during this period, I think for Congress to examine ways that it can be done in a bipartisan fashion ... that would be a more sensible approach to take," he said.

[adymond]

http://forum.pafoa.org/national-11/5...osecution.html

Same story as that link pretty much. I don't like this one bit.

[cgbudde]

Next he is going to have soldiers extradited to other countries for war crimes, where does it end, Obama is trying to please everyone but U.S. citizens.

[LittleRedToyota]

so you guys think the government is above the law or what?

do you think the people who created the policies the agents followed should potentially be prosecuted (if laws were broken)?

if laws were broken, what should happen?

what if the government breaks laws in the future? what should happen then?

[adymond]

so you guys think the government is above the law or what?

do you think the people who created the policies the agents followed should potentially be prosecuted (if laws were broken)?

if laws were broken, what should happen?

what if the government breaks laws in the future? what should happen then?

I don't think the government is above the law, but what I have a hard time with is how do you prosecute a person giving legal counsel? What law have they broken? What would the charge against a lawyer be for giving unsound legal advice?

To me this sounds more like a way to strike a blow against a political opponent. How does one advise a PotUS now knowing that their advice could lead to them being prosecuted? How does one now answer the question "If all options are on the table what are the legal restrictions?" without fear of being prosecuted in the future?

Why is it that if congress passes a law later found to be unconstitutional they are not held criminally accountable, but cabinet level bureaucrats can be held accountable? Where are the investigations into the congresscritters who supported these memos? If this were a consistant approach to all concerned I would be less inclined to say this is politically motivated and nothing more than prosecuting a US citizen for their interpretation/point of view.

IMo this is nothing more than the media and political puppet masters playing on an emotional issue.

[LittleRedToyota]

I don't think the government is above the law, but what I have a hard time with is how do you prosecute a person giving legal counsel? What law have they broken? What would the charge against a lawyer be for giving unsound legal advice?

i'm pretty sure the bar association has an ethics committee type thingie to address these issues. perhaps the attorneys involved should be investigated by that committee and then, if warranted, disbarred or otherwise sanctioned.

i don't know if the yeo and company broke any laws or not. i don't know if they broke any ethical standards or not.

i also don't know if anyone else broke any laws or not. i do know the US does have laws against torture. i do know the US has, in the past, characterized waterboarding (when done by other countries), for example, as torture. in fact, the US has prosecuted people for waterboarding in the past.

imho, there are clearly enough problematic questions regarding this and issues such as the NSA surveillance program to warrant an investigation.

To me this sounds more like a way to strike a blow against a political opponent.

that could very well be the motivation...as that, unfortunately, seems to be the most common motivation for everything that happens in washington. however, that doesn't change the need to follow rule of law.

How does one advise a PotUS now knowing that their advice could lead to them being prosecuted? How does one now answer the question "If all options are on the table what are the legal restrictions?" without fear of being prosecuted in the future?

on the flip side...how to we ensure that the executive branch cannot just do whatever the heck it wants, under the umbrella of (potentially very badly reasoned) legal opinions?

i mean, if the POTUS can just get some partisan lawyer to write a favorable opinion to do X and that somehow means it doesn't matter if X is actually against the law, we are in a world of trouble. rule of law is completely broken.

i imagine everyone involved took an oath...an oath to uphold and defend the constitution...and probably most of them also took an oath to obey the laws of the USA.

Why is it that if congress passes a law later found to be unconstitutional they are not held criminally accountable, but cabinet level bureaucrats can be held accountable?

two separate issues. but, two wrongs do not make a right.

Where are the investigations into the congresscritters who supported these memos?

what congresscritters supported the memos? what congresscritters even saw the memos?

If this were a consistant approach to all concerned I would be less inclined to say this is politically motivated and nothing more than prosecuting a US citizen for their interpretation/point of view.

IMo this is nothing more than the media and political puppet masters playing on an emotional issue.

could well be...but that is not an excuse to suspend rule of law. the answer is to make it be more conistantly applied--not to start handing out free passes because free passes were handed out in the past.

if this becomes our set in stone national policy, all future administrations (as well as the current one) will understand that they are above the law...they can do whatever the heck they want because they certainly will not prosecute themselves--and apparently no future administration will either.

btw, there is a very interesting article on this in the NYT today. i'm sure many will completely write it off because of the source, but they have some interesting sources themselves:

if interested:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us...html?th&emc=th

[Adam-12]

To me this sounds more like a way to strike a blow against a political opponent....

No way--you'll see Obama resist this with everything he's got. If he caves, you'll see very low-level flunkies prosecuted to put up a show, but nobody higher up will be touched. He knows that he'll be an ex-president with a criminal past of his own someday, and the last thing he'll want is a pissed-off republican for a successor.

[adymond]

i'm pretty sure the bar association has an ethics committee type thingie to address these issues. perhaps the attorneys involved should be investigated by that committee and then, if warranted, disbarred or otherwise sanctioned.

Then that should be the extent of the actions taken. Maybe GL can chime in on the sanctions and if any criminal charges could be brought against a lawyer for an improper interpretation of the law (if their interpretation was in fact improper).

i don't know if the yeo and company broke any laws or not. i don't know if they broke any ethical standards or not.

Laws and ethical standards are two TOTALLY different cans of worms. To suggest that there will be prosecutions assumes that laws were broken and criminal charges are being brought against the offenders.

i also don't know if anyone else broke any laws or not. i do know the US does have laws against torture. i do know the US has, in the past, characterized waterboarding (when done by other countries), for example, as torture. in fact, the US has prosecuted people for waterboarding in the past.

My understanding is that the ruling on this by the SCOTUS happened AFTER the memos were published. If that's the case then any prosecutions stemming from these memos would necessitate ex post facto prosecutions.

imho, there are clearly enough problematic questions regarding this and issues such as the NSA surveillance program to warrant an investigation.

Maybe there should be an investigation. But there is no way in HELL a non-partisan investigation can possibly be carried out at this point. As such I can't get behind an investigation.

that could very well be the motivation...as that, unfortunately, seems to be the most common motivation for everything that happens in washington. however, that doesn't change the need to follow rule of law.

You are assuming a law was broken. If no laws were broken (which seems to be the case IMO) then there is no deviation from the rule of law.

on the flip side...how to we ensure that the executive branch cannot just do whatever the heck it wants, under the umbrella of (potentially very badly reasoned) legal opinions?

By limiting the power amassed under the executive branch. Not by retroactively prosecuting members of the staff of the PotUS or their advisers.

i mean, if the POTUS can just get some partisan lawyer to write a favorable opinion to do X and that somehow means it doesn't matter if X is actually against the law, we are in a world of trouble. rule of law is completely broken.

I guess this may be me not understanding how advice on the legality of an action can be a criminal act, but I just don't get this argument. Because a lawyer says something isn't against the law does not mean it is not against the law or constutional or unconstutional. What happens is a lawyer makes a reccomendation, an action is carried out, said action is questioned in court and a ruling is rendered. That ruling does not make the original advice a criminal act and I also don't see how it could even make the action carried out to be criminal either as intent is not present.

i imagine everyone involved took an oath...an oath to uphold and defend the constitution...and probably most of them also took an oath to obey the laws of the USA.

So anyone who takes those oaths who advocates for an action that is later deemed to be unconstutional or not legally sound should be prosecuted? Even if there is no criminal intent?

two separate issues. but, two wrongs do not make a right.

I don't really see them as two seperate issues. The reason congress has those protections is because the Founders did want one administration to have this very power over previous administrations due to what King George regularly did to members of Parliment when they displeased him. I think this same protection should either be extended to advisors/cabinet members or removed from the Congress and Senate. It's either an all or nothing propisition to me.

what congresscritters supported the memos? what congresscritters even saw the memos?

From my understanding of the nature of these memos they were presented to the leaders of both parties in both the House and Senate as well as the members of the Intel Committees.

could well be...but that is not an excuse to suspend rule of law. the answer is to make it be more conistantly applied--not to start handing out free passes because free passes were handed out in the past.

Agreed. I would just say it either needs to be extended to ALL members of government. Don't allow those doing the investigations be free of prosecution as they currently are for acting in equally unconstitutional ways or supporting equally unconstitutional actions.

if this becomes our set in stone national policy, all future administrations (as well as the current one) will understand that they are above the law...they can do whatever the heck they want because they certainly will not prosecute themselves--and apparently no future administration will either.

On the flip side if prosecutions for legal advice becomes the norm transparency disappears, fewer legal minds will think outside of the box when advising the president as well as fewer people will be willing to make tough decisions.

btw, there is a very interesting article on this in the NYT today. i'm sure many will completely write it off because of the source, but they have some interesting sources themselves:

if interested:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us...html?th&emc=th

I'll get back to you about this article once I have digested it and read through some of the sources.

[LittleRedToyota]

Laws and ethical standards are two TOTALLY different cans of worms. To suggest that there will be prosecutions assumes that laws were broken and criminal charges are being brought against the offenders.

i'm suggesting there *will* be prosecutions. i'm merely suggestion there were some legally questionable actions taken and that there seems to be enough questions to warrant an investigation to see whether or not there should be any prosecutions.

My understanding is that the ruling on this by the SCOTUS happened AFTER the memos were published. If that's the case then any prosecutions stemming from these memos would necessitate ex post facto prosecutions.

we prosecuted people for waterboarding decades ago. the US has had laws against torture for many years.

Maybe there should be an investigation. But there is no way in HELL a non-partisan investigation can possibly be carried out at this point.

i wouldn't say there is no way in hell...but i do share your concerns.

however, if we have a system where the government can never be investigated for potentially breaking the law because of partisan politics, we are in a world of trouble.

of course, it may just be that we really are simply in a world of trouble.

You are assuming a law was broken. If no laws were broken (which seems to be the case IMO) then there is no deviation from the rule of law.

no, i am not. i am saying there needs to be an investigation to determine if laws were broken, and, if they were, who is responsible and, thus, who should be prosecuted.

many who oppose such an investigation are assuming no laws were broken. or they just don't understand the importance of rule of law (the maintaining of which is much more important than preventing terrorist attacks, frankly).

By limiting the power amassed under the executive branch. Not by retroactively prosecuting members of the staff of the PotUS or their advisers.

if they broke the law, they broke the law. no prosecution is ever not retroactive...this isn't "minority report", ya know. we don't have a precrime division (as much as some people would like to)

I guess this may be me not understanding how advice on the legality of an action can be a criminal act, but I just don't get this argument. Because a lawyer says something isn't against the law does not mean it is not against the law or constutional or unconstutional.

right...and just because a lawyer gives you bad advice doesn't get you off the hook for breaking the law (at least not if you are just a common citizen).

i'm not saying the lawyers should necessarily be prosecuted for giving bad advice. if they broke the law in giving that bad advice, they should be. if they didn't, they shouldn't be. (and the ethics question is separate, i agree.)

however, those who ordered others to break the law, if anyone did, probably should be prosecuted. those who actually broke the law, if anyone did, potentially should also be prosecuted.

What happens is a lawyer makes a reccomendation, an action is carried out, said action is questioned in court and a ruling is rendered. That ruling does not make the original advice a criminal act and I also don't see how it could even make the action carried out to be criminal either as intent is not present.

"intent" doesn't mean "intent" to break the law. if it did, ignorance of the law really would be an excuse. "intent" means intentionally doing an action...the legality of the action isn't really relevant.

the situation you are setting up is one where the executive branch could do absolutely anthing it wants. all it has to do is get a politically appointed lawyer to render an opinion that an action is legal, and, then, by your approach no one could ever be prosecuted for that action--even if it really is illegal. think about where that could get us for a minute.

So anyone who takes those oaths who advocates for an action that is later deemed to be unconstutional or not legally sound should be prosecuted?

again, all crimes are only later deemed to be illegal. if someone kills someone else, the action is not legally deemed illegal until it gets to court and the court rules it at such--and the defense of "my buddy the lawyer said it was legal" won't fly. there is nothing at all different about this situation.

Even if there is no criminal intent?

there was intent to do what was done. that is what intent means.

I don't really see them as two seperate issues. The reason congress has those protections is because the Founders did want one administration to have this very power over previous administrations due to what King George regularly did to members of Parliment when they displeased him. I think this same protection should either be extended to advisors/cabinet members or removed from the Congress and Senate. It's either an all or nothing propisition to me.

given that we do not live under a king, and, rather that we live in a constitutional republic based on rule of law, i don't see how what you are advocating here does not put the government above the law.

From my understanding of the nature of these memos they were presented to the leaders of both parties in both the House and Senate as well as the members of the Intel Committees.

see the NYT article.

I would just say it either needs to be extended to ALL members of government.

absolutely.

On the flip side if prosecutions for legal advice becomes the norm transparency disappears, fewer legal minds will think outside of the box when advising the president as well as fewer people will be willing to make tough decisions.

i am not advocating prosecution for legal advice (unless the lawyers involved actually broke laws)...though i would possibly advocate for ethics investigations against the lawyers involved.

what i am saying is that getting legal advice does not give one immunity from prosecution...or at least is doesn't for you and me (and, so, it should not for anyone else either). if laws were broken, they were broken.

again, though, i don't know whether anyone should be prosecuted. i just know there are enough legitimate questions and enough evidence to warrant an investigation.

i also know that maintaining rule of law--i.e., making sure the government is not above the law--is *the* single most important aspect of maintaining and defending america.

[larrymeyer]

Well let's see number one maybe we should have let them carry out the terrorist attacks because we use water boarding ????

Thats almost the same as the Somalia pirate being tried in a US court he should be tried in a Somalian court I believe the last three pirates were hung. Or maybe by a International maritime court who would also have the ability to hang him. But over here in an American prison he'll be living better then he would in Somalia on our tax dollar.

But hanging is cruel and unusual punishment. So let's just let him go and he can take another ship.