|
Post by Mario on Aug 24, 2009 18:19:00 GMT -5
US launches probe into CIA abuses A special US prosecutor has been appointed to investigate allegations of abuse of terror suspects. The announcement of John Durham's selection came as a report was published detailing the allegations of abuse by CIA agents. Agents threatened to kill a key terror suspect's children and sexually assault another's mother, it is claimed. The report was made in 2004 but only a heavily censored version appeared and a judge ordered fuller disclosure. The justice department is reported to be reopening about a dozen prisoner abuse cases. Also on Monday, President Barack Obama approved a new elite team to question terror suspects. Republican anger Mr Durham, who is already investigating the destruction of videotapes of CIA interrogations, was picked by US Attorney General Eric Holder. “ stand up for those officers who did what their country asked and who followed the legal guidance they were given ” Leon Panetta, CIA director
Mr Holder said: "I fully realise that my decision to commence this preliminary review will be controversial
"In this case, given all of the information currently available, it is clear to me that this review is the only responsible course of action for me to take."
Special prosecutors in the US are independent figures appointed to investigate the possible wrongdoing of government officials or agencies.
Senior Republicans have already expressed anger at the decision.
Nine signatories of a letter to Mr Holder said they were "deeply disappointed" at a decision that "could have a chilling effect on the work of the intelligence community".
'Aggressive'
The declassified document released by the justice department said that one agent told key terror suspect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that "we're going to kill your children" if there were further attacks on the US.
ANALYSIS Kevin Connolly, BBC News, Washington
The question now that these startling depictions of the handling of those suspects are in the public domain is - what should happen next?
Barack Obama doesn't want to inflame anti-American feelings around the world but he doesn't want to alienate the professionals within America's own intelligence agencies. The problem is that below the cautious pragmatism of the White House rages a partisan political battle.
America's human rights lobby wants full disclosure, and on the left of the Democratic Party there is a real appetite for proceeding with further investigations.
Conservatives, though, will argue that the harsh interrogations came at a desperate moment in American history. The interrogators could be cast as dedicated intelligence officers, ruthless only in the cause of protecting their fellow citizens.
Another agent allegedly told Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a suspect in the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, that his mother would be sexually assaulted in front of him. The agent has denied the allegation.
In other incidents involving Mr Nashiri, he was allegedly threatened with an unloaded gun and had a power drill held near him which was repeatedly turned on and off.
Another incident involved an agent pinching an artery in a detainee's neck. As the man was passing out, the agent shook him awake, then repeated the action twice.
Ahead of the document's release, CIA Director Leon Panetta wrote on the agency's website that the report was "in many ways an old story" and that he would make "no judgments on the accuracy of the report or the various views expressed about it".
He said it was clear that the CIA had "obtained intelligence from high-value detainees when inside information on al-Qaeda was in short supply".
Mr Panetta said the CIA had been "aggressive" in seeking regular legal advice from the department of justice on its techniques.
He said his primary concern was "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."
But Mr Panetta also said: "This agency made no excuses for behaviour, however rare, that went beyond the formal guidelines on counter-terrorism."
Earlier on Monday, deputy White House press secretary Bill Burton confirmed there would be a new interrogation team for key terror suspects.
Correspondents say Mr Obama was concerned at the number of different agencies involved and he wanted to bring them together.
The new team will be called the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group. Story from BBC NEWS: news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/8219307.stm -----
This is terrible news. This wil create more terrorists, insurgants and anti-US feelings. Our leadership has been acting recklessly. I hope all the people involved in this get prosecuted
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Aug 24, 2009 20:12:16 GMT -5
it's a catch-22 situation we're dealing with here. on one hand, it's about time that people who have done these terrible things will be prosecuted. on the other hand, many of the abuses will go public, creating even more problems for the west (and the u.s. in particular).
|
|
|
Post by Mario on Aug 24, 2009 23:38:43 GMT -5
well these stories are gonna be leaked one way or another. I actually read an article from a European newsite that reported these "interrogation" methods 3 months ago.
I think were in worse shape if these stories are leaked rather than confessed or somebody on our side blowing the whistle
|
|
|
Post by MEANSTREAK on Aug 25, 2009 16:39:14 GMT -5
bah I couldn't care less about Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri's mother. The bitch should be slapped for giving birth to him I say. It's a huge waste of time and money. No one will be "prosecuted" but all sorts of skeletons will come out. What do they think that will do? Make terrorist nutjobs suddenly love us? Sure it will. If they got a problem with how things were run then change them and move on from there.
|
|
|
Post by thechemist on Aug 25, 2009 18:10:47 GMT -5
That whole argument that this will be a recruiting tool for Al-Quida is bullshit. The only thing those animals respect is strength. The Obama administration hand-wringing and apology tour is what's getting us into trouble. A nice little message of "mess with us and we'll inroduce your genitals to Mr. Soldering Iron" is what is needed. Leak away.
|
|
|
Post by Mario on Aug 25, 2009 21:50:10 GMT -5
bah I couldn't care less about Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri's mother. The bitch should be slapped for giving birth to him I say. It's a huge waste of time and money. No one will be "prosecuted" but all sorts of skeletons will come out. What do they think that will do? Make terrorist nutjobs suddenly love us? Sure it will. If they got a problem with how things were run then change them and move on from there. You're missing the point, its not about making the terrorist nutjobs love us, its about preventing those people who are in those environments who are not terrorists from joining their cause. If someone came to your neighborhood and started violating your neighbor's (or your) children and parents, you would be pretty pissed off. You're fighting a war right now, you gotta be smart, not reckless if you want to win.
|
|
|
Post by MEANSTREAK on Aug 26, 2009 7:05:56 GMT -5
You're missing the point, its not about making the terrorist nutjobs love us, its about preventing those people who are in those environments who are not terrorists from joining their cause. If someone came to your neighborhood and started violating your neighbor's (or your) children and parents, you would be pretty pissed off. You're fighting a war right now, you gotta be smart, not reckless if you want to win. Back when Clinton was president we had no waterboarding, no children killing threats and no mother raping threats by the CIA. Yet they blew up the WTC parking garage in 1993, blew up embassies in Africa in 1998, hit the USS Cole in 2000 and of course 9/11. I don't know about you but I'd rather not go back to how things were before the "devil Bush" was president.
|
|
|
Post by Mario on Aug 26, 2009 23:02:36 GMT -5
put your partisanship aside, you gotta be more radical than Al Qaeda to think that exporting terror and torture will keep us safe
|
|
|
Post by halftheworld on Aug 30, 2009 18:15:26 GMT -5
You're missing the point, its not about making the terrorist nutjobs love us, its about preventing those people who are in those environments who are not terrorists from joining their cause. If someone came to your neighborhood and started violating your neighbor's (or your) children and parents, you would be pretty pissed off. You're fighting a war right now, you gotta be smart, not reckless if you want to win. Back when Clinton was president we had no waterboarding, no children killing threats and no mother raping threats by the CIA. Yet they blew up the WTC parking garage in 1993, blew up embassies in Africa in 1998, hit the USS Cole in 2000 and of course 9/11. I don't know about you but I'd rather not go back to how things were before the "devil Bush" was president. okay meanstreak, you are a history expert. do you really think bin ladens hatred had it's origin in clintons term? i mean e.g. IF a certain government hadn't supported terrorists in the 80s we might not have that big problem today. osama is to some extent a product of us foreign politics. and that was in the 80s! the problem i have: we don't know shit about how bushs torture policy is going to work in the long term. cause there is no doubt that it radicalised people in the middle east! and that is bushs legacy! my point is: we won't change osamas ideology. he is a radical nutjob. BUT: we can influence his impact on people! example: imagine we would catch this number one terrorist and torture him until he dies to get some information. what about those people who only plan their attacs as revenge for this guy? the thing is that AQ is not a structure where bushs politics worked.
|
|