CIA Report

[Jiro]

Obama Legal Team Wants Defendants' Rights Limited

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule long-standing law that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights.

The administration's action _ and several others _ have disappointed civil rights and civil liberties groups that expected President Barack Obama to reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, after the Democrat's call for change during the 2008 campaign.

Since taking office, Obama has drawn criticism for backing the continued imprisonment of enemy combatants in Afghanistan without trial, invoking the "state secrets" privilege to avoid releasing information in lawsuits and limiting the rights of prisoners to test genetic evidence used to convict them.

The case at issue is Michigan v. Jackson, in which the Supreme Court said in 1986 that police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one, unless the attorney is present. The decision applies even to defendants who agree to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.

Anything police learn through such questioning cannot be used against the defendant at trial. The opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time.

The justices could decide as early as Friday whether they want to hear arguments on the issue as they wrestle with an ongoing case from Louisiana that involves police questioning of an indigent defendant that led to a murder confession and a death sentence.

The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, said the 1986 decision "serves no real purpose" and offers only "meager benefits." The government said defendants who don't wish to talk to police don't have to and that officers must respect that decision. But it said there is no reason a defendant who wants to should not be able to respond to officers' questions.

At the same time, the administration acknowledges that the decision "only occasionally prevents federal prosecutors from obtaining appropriate convictions."

The administration's legal move is a reminder that Obama, who has moved from campaigning to governing, now speaks for federal prosecutors.

The administration's position assumes a level playing field, with equally savvy police and criminal suspects, lawyers on the other side of the case said. But the protection offered by the court in Stevens' 1986 opinion is especially important for vulnerable defendants, including the mentally and developmentally disabled, addicts, juveniles and the poor, the lawyers said.

"Your right to assistance of counsel can be undermined if somebody on the other side who is much more sophisticated than you are comes and talks to you and asks for information," said Sidney Rosdeitcher, a New York lawyer who advises the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

Stephen B. Bright, a lawyer who works with poor defendants at the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta, said the administration's position "is disappointing, no question."

Bright said that poor defendants' constitutional right to a lawyer, spelled out by the high court in 1965, has been neglected in recent years. "I would hope that this administration would be doing things to shore up the right to counsel for poor people accused of crimes," said Bright, whose group joined with the Brennan Center and other rights organizations in a court filing opposing the administration's position.

Former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson and former FBI Director William Sessions are among 19 one-time judges and prosecutors urging the court to leave the decision in place because it has been incorporated into routine police practice and establishes a rule on interrogations that is easy to follow.

Eleven states also are echoing the administration's call to overrule the 1986 case.

Justice Samuel Alito first raised the prospect of overruling the decision at arguments in January over the rights of Jesse Montejo, the Louisiana death row inmate.

Montejo's lawyer, Donald Verrilli, urged the court not to do it. Since then, Verrilli has joined the Justice Department, but played no role in the department's brief.

Rights to Due Process? lol!

 

[Liebling:-)))]

the SS and Gestapo tortured (pulling off nails, raped, putting them in cold water for hours and hours, etc) thousands of Jews and even German to keep Nazi Germany safe. Many of the leaders were hanged after the Nurember trial. Now, Liebling, is that funny?

Cleeny think torture to make America safe make no sense to me but tried to save his skin... :roll:

I respectfully asking you please think of Germans and people with different races, not just Jews who were also sent to Nazi Camp, too. It bothers me to see some ignorants only jews and forget Germans and people with different races.

The judge at Nüremburg trail excuted many Nazi officers/soldiers. They claimed that they follow Hitler´s order but it doesn´t count Nuermberg trail because they should know it´s wrong. Its about justice that´s why I beleive the same with Bush admin. as well... Bush amdin. deserve prosecution.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

U.N. rep.: Bush lawyers must be prosecuted
Envoy says U.S. obligated to try those who drafted interrogation policies

Manfred Nowak, the U.N. special rapporteur on torture, says it is up to U.S. courts and prosecutors to prove that memos were written with the intention to incite torture.

VIENNA - The U.S. is obligated by a United Nations convention to prosecute Bush administration lawyers who allegedly drafted policies that approved the use of harsh interrogation tactics against terrorism suspects, the U.N.'s top anti-torture envoy said Friday.

Earlier this week, President Barack Obama left the door open to prosecuting Bush administration officials who devised the legal authority for gruesome terror-suspect interrogations. He had previously absolved CIA officers from prosecution.

Manfred Nowak, who serves as a U.N. special rapporteur in Geneva, said Washington is obligated under the U.N. Convention against Torture to prosecute U.S. Justice Department officials who wrote memos that defined torture in the narrowest way in order to justify and legitimize it, and who assured CIA officials that their use of questionable tactics was legal.

"That's exactly what I call complicity or participation" to torture as defined by the convention, Nowak said at a news conference. "At that time, every reasonable person would know that waterboarding, for instance, is torture."

Independent investigation requirements
Nowak, an Austrian law professor, said it was up to U.S. courts and prosecutors to prove that the memos were written with the intention to incite torture.

Nowak also said any probe of questionable CIA interrogation tactics must be independent and have thorough investigative powers.

"It can be a congressional investigation commission, a special investigator, but it must be independent and with thorough investigative powers," Nowak said.

On Thursday, Obama's press secretary suggested Obama does not care for an independent panel.

Last week, the Obama administration released secret CIA memos detailing interrogation tactics sanctioned under Bush.

The memos authorized keeping detainees naked, in painful standing positions and in cold cells for long periods of time. Other techniques included depriving them of solid food and slapping them. Sleep deprivation, prolonged shackling and threats to a detainee's family also were used.

Nowak said Saturday that Obama's decision not to prosecute CIA operatives who used questionable interrogation practices violates the same U.N. convention. But at that point he did not specifically address the issue of how the convention would apply to those who drafted the interrogation policy and gave the CIA the legal go-ahead.

U.N. rep.: Bush lawyers must be prosecuted - White House- msnbc.com

 

[Jiro]

U.N. rep.: Bush lawyers must be prosecuted
Envoy says U.S. obligated to try those who drafted interrogation policies

UN rep demanding that Bush lawyers be prosecuted? huh... gotta love the hypocrisy. How about UN's corruption with oil-for-food program in Iraq?

UN should clean its backyard first before finger-pointing.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Report links CIA, harsh military interrogations
Ex-Abu Ghraib officer: Study proves military people were scapegoats

A 232-page Senate report ties the CIA's reliance on harsh, unyielding interrogation policies to the abuses of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. military authorities at the Abu Ghraib prison and U.S. bases at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in Afghanistan.

WASHINGTON - The brutal treatment of prisoners by the military at Guantanamo Bay, Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and Afghanistan was systematic and a direct result of the CIA's early use of harsh interrogation tactics, according to a Senate report.

The 232-page report released Tuesday by the Senate Armed Services Committee came less than a week after President Barack Obama released the Aug. 1, 2002 memo that justified the use of severe methods by the CIA.

The timeline laid out in the report shows, however, that military and CIA officers were being trained how to conduct coercive interrogations for as much as eight months before receiving the Justice Department green light. The CIA had started conducting severe interrogations in the spring of 2002.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the committee's chairman, said the report shows that abuse of prisoners was sweeping and not, as former Bush administration defense official Paul Wolfowitz once said, the result of "a few bad apples." As the No. 2 defense official, Wolfowitz was a major architect of the Iraq war.

"Authorizations of aggressive interrogation techniques by senior officials resulted in abuse and conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment," Levin said.

The Senate investigation has been in a Pentagon security review since Nov. 21, 2008. Its findings were drawn from more than 70 interviews and 200,000 pages of classified and unclassified documents.

"In my judgment," Levin said, "the report represents a condemnation of both the Bush administration's interrogation policies and of senior administration officials who attempted to shift the blame for abuse such as that seen at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan to low-ranking soldiers."

Abu Ghraib scapegoats?

An Army Reserve colonel demoted from brigadier general because of prisoner abuses at the Abu Ghraib facility in Iraq said Wednesday the Senate report supports her contention that uniformed military people were made scapegoats for Bush administration policies.

'More than a few bad apples’

April 22: Former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski reveals how soldiers were victims of scapegoating for merely obeying orders.

Col. Janis Karpinski said that "from the beginning, I've been saying these soldiers did not design these techniques on their own."

Karpinski said she felt vindicated and said she thought it had taken "far too long" for the information about the history of the interrogation policy to surface publicly.

Eleven U.S. soldiers have been convicted and five officers, including Karpinski, have been disciplined in the Abu Ghraib scandal. Karpinski was demoted to colonel for alleged dereliction of duty — a charge she has vehemently denied. The only soldier still imprisoned for Abu Ghraib is former Cpl. Charles Graner Jr., who received a 10-year sentence for assault, battery, conspiracy, maltreatment, indecent acts and dereliction of duty.

Army documents released in May 2005 substantiated Karpinski's assertions that she was innocent of two principal allegations lodged against her by officer who initially investigated abuses at Abu Ghraib.

"From the beginning," Karpinski said, "I've been saying these soldiers did not design these techniques on their own, and the soldiers said in their own court martials that 'we didn't do this on our own. We were following orders.' "
"The line (of authority) is very clear. It was cloudy for years," Karpinski said. In an interview on CBS television, she pointed to findings that the authorization for harsh interrogation tactics originated "from the very top" in Washington and was given to military people at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and elsewhere.

"Scapegoated is the perfect word," she said, "and it's an understatement." Karpinski said the Senate report is "black and white proof" that uniformed servicemen and women were not alone responsible for the abuses.
According to the Senate report, the road to the abuses began in December 2001, just three months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. The Pentagon's general counsel office reached out that month to a military agency that trains American personnel in how to endure enemy interrogations.

The legal office wanted information about how the training unit, the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, conducted mock interrogations and detention operations. The agency trains U.S. armed forces personnel to endure abusive treatment similar to methods used by North Korean, Communist Chinese and Vietcong interrogators.

In February 2002, President George W. Bush declared that the United States would not extend full Geneva Convention protections to al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners. He replaced that 60-year-old standard governing the treatment of prisoners with a new, untested guideline vaguely requiring only "humane treatment."

A month later, the CIA captured Abu Zubaydah, an alleged top al-Qaida organizer in Pakistan. Zubaydah proved resistant to traditional interrogation techniques. During the first half of 2002, CIA interrogators began to subject Zubaydah to waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning taught by survival school trainers to CIA personnel sometime in the first half of 2002.

Redefined torture line

In July 2002, responding to a follow-up from the Pentagon general counsel's office, JPRA officials detailed their methods, but warned that harsh physical techniques could backfire by making prisoners more resistant. They also cautioned about the reliability of information gleaned from the severe methods and warned that the public and political backlash could be "intolerable."

"A subject in extreme pain may provide an answer, any answer or many answers in order to get the pain to stop," the training officials said in their memo.

Less than a week later, the Justice Department issued two legal opinions that sanctioned the CIA's harsh interrogation program. The memos, one of which remained classified top secret until it was released by the Obama administration last week, appeared to draw deeply on the survival school data to show that the CIA's methods would not cross the line into torture, which was also newly defined.

The opinion concluded that the harsh interrogation methods would be acceptable for use on terror detainees because the same techniques did not cause severe physical or mental pain to U.S. military students who were tested in the government's carefully controlled training program.

Several people from the survival program objected to the use of their mock interrogations in battlefield settings. In an October 2002 e-mail, a senior Army psychologist told personnel at Guantanamo Bay that the methods are inherently dangerous and students are sometimes injured, even in a controlled setting.

"The risk with real detainees is increased exponentially," he said.

Rumsfeld approval

Nevertheless, for the next two years, the CIA and military officials received interrogation training and direct interrogation support from JPRA trainers.

By October 2002, military officials in the Pentagon and at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base had decided they needed tougher interrogations at the island prison. They crafted a plan that adopted some of the survival school methods — stress positions, food deprivation, shaving heads and beards, stripping prisoners naked, hooding them, exposing prisoners to extremes of heat and cold, and slamming them up against walls.

In December, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved 15 of those methods.

A month later, Rumsfeld's approvals for Guantanamo interrogations were put on hold while the matter underwent review inside the Pentagon. The delay was caused in large part because of the strenuous objections of the military services' top lawyers.

But according to the Senate report, the Rumsfeld memo had already made its way into the hands of special operations units based in Afghanistan. Military lawyers there saw the memo as permission to use the 'advanced techniques' on potential high-value prisoners. The Guantanamo methods were not supposed to be used at the island jail — but they were now deemed fair game in Afghanistan.

By February 2003, a special military unit preparing for the Iraq invasion obtained a copy of the Afghanistan interrogation policy that incorporated the techniques approved by Rumsfeld for Guantanamo. They changed the letterhead and adopted it wholesale for their own use in Iraq.

Subsequently, the interrogation officer in charge of Abu Ghraib obtained a copy of the special military unit's Iraq interrogation policy. She made minor changes — adding sensory deprivation and constraining sleep deprivation to 72 hours at a time — and submitted it through her chain of command.

Many of the procedures were adopted Iraq-wide in a memo issued in September 2003 by the Iraq war commander, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez.

According to the Senate report, lawyers for U.S. Central Command raised immediate concerns that the policy violated the Geneva Conventions, which applied to Iraq.

It would be a month before the policy was brought back under Geneva Convention guidelines. Despite the revision, the abuses at Abu Ghraib had already begun.

CIA, harsh military interrogations linked - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com

From 1st to 2nd pages...

for share your experience with us, Janis Karpinski. I´m glad that you speak... Yes, you are right that soldiers were victims of scapegoating for obeying orders but they must have known it´s WRONG. No wonder, why there´re more and more US deserters because they KNEW it´s illegal. Torture and mistreatment etc are not included agreement contract. After that they learn that what Bush policy really is. They feel being betray and lie because they thought they serve for their country.

Yes, Lynnie England, Charles Graner and others claimed that they only follow the order...

I posted the link of Lynnie England´s interivew with German reporter of Spiegln at other thread saying that Bush Admin. KNEW it because Rumsfield visited Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison time to time... ´

Again, Bush & his companians DESERVE prosection!!!!! Iraqis, Muslim and Arabs deserve justice...

 

[ASLGAL]

Truly this political play of Obama's is backfiring.


Should interrogation information be released - "No"

But, since Obama has done this then let's do it, let's investigate, let's release all of the memos and give the people a true picture of what has gone on, who all signed off on it, what was involved, what was accomplished and why things were done the way they were done.

I do not see Obama Admin. pushing much further or demanding charges unless he is willing to prosecute his pals Pelosi, Reid, and others who , in the Dem ran Congress at the time, continued to get their briefings and sign off on the interrogation tactics being used.

adding a thought, for any of our members from outside the US. Prior to trashing or damning the US make sure to look at your own country's history.
The criticism I see from other countries is oft times comical when one considers how barbaric they have been or are in their dealings.

 

[jillio]

Obama Legal Team Wants Defendants' Rights Limited



Rights to Due Process? lol!

This doesn't have anything to do with the right to due process.

 

[Foxrac]

Court again rejects lawsuit over alleged Gitmo mistreatment

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A lawsuit filed against the U.S. government by four British men formerly held at the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was dismissed again Friday by a federal appeals court.

The three-judge panel agreed with assertions made by both the Bush and Obama administrations that the men were not entitled to relief in federal courts because the prisoners were foreigners held outside the United States.

The men claim they were physically abused, tortured and denied their religious freedom rights.

At issue is what rights noncitizens have to contest in U.S. courts their treatment by the U.S. military during a time of war.

The Supreme Court had ordered the appeals court to reconsider its decision last year denying the British prisoners' claims. The high court has said the roughly 240 men held at Guantanamo are entitled to some rights under the U.S. Constitution.

But in their 11-page ruling, the three appeals court judges reiterated their view that U.S. officials could not be held responsible for any mistreatment because "there was no authority for -- and ample authority against -- plaintiffs' asserted rights at the time of the alleged misconduct."

The four British Muslim prisoners claim they were held and interrogated "under appalling conditions" in Afghanistan and at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo. They claim beatings, painful shackling and humiliating treatment over their Muslim faith, such as interrupted prayers and being forced to shave their beards.

They sued Pentagon officials and officers under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but their claims have been repeatedly rejected. The men said the Pentagon officials -- including former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld -- authorized and carried out the mistreatment. The military denies the claims.

The appeals court said the U.S. officials should not be held responsible for lawsuits over their conduct, in part because the four prisoners have since been released from custody. "We do not require government employees to anticipate future developments in constitutional law," said the three judges, all of whom were named to the bench by Republican presidents.

"At the time of their detention, neither the Supreme Court nor this court had ever held that aliens captured on foreign soil and detained beyond sovereign U.S. territory had any constitutional rights," the court said.

The Obama administration filed a brief in the case supporting the Pentagon officials, saying that holding such officials liable for developments in the future could affect their ability to make appropriate policy decisions.

The attorneys for Shaqif Rasul, one of the four former prisoners, had successfully argued an earlier, separate case that reached the Supreme Court in 2004, the year Rasul was freed and returned to England.

In that case, the justices said the detainees had a basic right to challenge their confinement in federal court.

"The courts of the United States have traditionally been open to nonresident aliens," the high court said in its 6-3 ruling. That right was reaffirmed in a ruling in June involving another Guantanamo prisoner, Bosnian Lakhdar Boumediene.

Federal courts in Washington have since been flooded by a variety of appeals from current and former Guantanamo prisoners.

The case ruled on Friday is Rasul v. Myers (06-5209).

Court again rejects lawsuit over alleged Gitmo mistreatment - CNN.com

 

[Foxrac]

CIA, harsh military interrogations linked - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com

From 1st to 2nd pages...

for share your experience with us, Janis Karpinski. I´m glad that you speak... Yes, you are right that soldiers were victims of scapegoating for obeying orders but they must have known it´s WRONG. No wonder, why there´re more and more US deserters because they KNEW it´s illegal. Torture and mistreatment etc are not included agreement contract. After that they learn that what Bush policy really is. They feel being betray and lie because they thought they serve for their country.

Yes, Lynnie England, Charles Graner and others claimed that they only follow the order...

I posted the link of Lynnie England´s interivew with German reporter of Spiegln at other thread saying that Bush Admin. KNEW it because Rumsfield visited Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison time to time... ´

Again, Bush & his companians DESERVE prosection!!!!! Iraqis, Muslim and Arabs deserve justice...

Sorry, Liebling.

No one will going after on Bush and you have get deal with it, however UN or foreign court has nothing with situation in US, also read above about US judge dismissed any cases about torture.

 

[Byrdie714]

Sorry to find humor in this. But reminds me of that comic... With the puppets he has.

About dying, with so many virgins awaiting.

Can not seem to think of the comics name.

On a serious note....
I still stand, on the fact that no one actually knows how to handle the accused.. Due to America is so threaten by the terrorist.

72 Virgins--I wouldn't even know how to deal with that! Although I wonder if it was a female terrorist--does she get 72 male virgins?

again..... domestic terrorism IS NOT the same as terrorism by Al Qaeda because it was the war, not criminal. The war cannot be covered by our federal statutes

it's like saying that a military invasion/retaliation is illegal under our federal statutes. Seems like you have trouble understanding this issue. It's pretty simple, really.

Terrorism is terrorism regardless if it is dometic or foreign. Remember that Timothy McVeigh's bombing of the federal building is an act of war against the government. So....your argument that domestic and international terrorism aren't the same is moot.

sorry dear. they don't. good luck for them!

like I said - if it's regarding American citizen, yes they have a case. as for Al Qaeda terrorists, sorry nope.

American Civil Liberties Union


where exactly does the Al Qaeda terrorist fit in that? What law has the government violated? Beside the Al Qaeda terrorists are not American citizens. Thus - ACLU has no case in here.

Due process of the law. Afterall--we are now prosecuting the Somali pirate on American soil.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A lawsuit filed against the U.S. government by four British men formerly held at the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was dismissed again Friday by a federal appeals court.

The three-judge panel agreed with assertions made by both the Bush and Obama administrations that the men were not entitled to relief in federal courts because the prisoners were foreigners held outside the United States.

The men claim they were physically abused, tortured and denied their religious freedom rights.

At issue is what rights noncitizens have to contest in U.S. courts their treatment by the U.S. military during a time of war.

The Supreme Court had ordered the appeals court to reconsider its decision last year denying the British prisoners' claims. The high court has said the roughly 240 men held at Guantanamo are entitled to some rights under the U.S. Constitution.

But in their 11-page ruling, the three appeals court judges reiterated their view that U.S. officials could not be held responsible for any mistreatment because "there was no authority for -- and ample authority against -- plaintiffs' asserted rights at the time of the alleged misconduct."

The four British Muslim prisoners claim they were held and interrogated "under appalling conditions" in Afghanistan and at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo. They claim beatings, painful shackling and humiliating treatment over their Muslim faith, such as interrupted prayers and being forced to shave their beards.

They sued Pentagon officials and officers under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but their claims have been repeatedly rejected. The men said the Pentagon officials -- including former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld -- authorized and carried out the mistreatment. The military denies the claims.

The appeals court said the U.S. officials should not be held responsible for lawsuits over their conduct, in part because the four prisoners have since been released from custody. "We do not require government employees to anticipate future developments in constitutional law," said the three judges, all of whom were named to the bench by Republican presidents.

"At the time of their detention, neither the Supreme Court nor this court had ever held that aliens captured on foreign soil and detained beyond sovereign U.S. territory had any constitutional rights," the court said.

The Obama administration filed a brief in the case supporting the Pentagon officials, saying that holding such officials liable for developments in the future could affect their ability to make appropriate policy decisions.

The attorneys for Shaqif Rasul, one of the four former prisoners, had successfully argued an earlier, separate case that reached the Supreme Court in 2004, the year Rasul was freed and returned to England.

In that case, the justices said the detainees had a basic right to challenge their confinement in federal court.

"The courts of the United States have traditionally been open to nonresident aliens," the high court said in its 6-3 ruling. That right was reaffirmed in a ruling in June involving another Guantanamo prisoner, Bosnian Lakhdar Boumediene.

Federal courts in Washington have since been flooded by a variety of appeals from current and former Guantanamo prisoners.

The case ruled on Friday is Rasul v. Myers (06-5209).

Court again rejects lawsuit over alleged Gitmo mistreatment - CNN.com

It may have been dismissed but I wouldn't be suprised if they appeal to the SCOTUS.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

US to issue 'prison abuse' photos

The Pentagon is about to release "hundreds" of photographs showing the alleged abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, US officials say.

The alleged abuses by US personnel are said to relate to President George W Bush's time in office.

The photos are being made public in response to a Freedom of Information lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) five years ago.

The court order had been contested by the Bush administration.

The US defence department said the Pentagon had agreed to release a "substantial" number of previously unseen photographs by May 28.

"I think it will be in the hundreds," added a Pentagon official, who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity.

'Visual proof'

The images relate to around 60 criminal investigations of US military personnel suspected of abusing detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2001 to 2006.

The ACLU says the photos show that the much-publicised abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq amounted to a specific policy.

"These photographs provide visual proof that prisoner abuse by US personnel was not aberrational but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib," said ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh.

But a Pentagon spokesman downplayed allegations of widespread abuse, saying it had acted swiftly to discipline some 400 personnel found to be involved in abuses.

The release of the photos will increase pressure on the Obama administration to consider prosecuting Bush-era officials for alleged complicity in torture and maltreatment of terrorist suspects, says the BBC's North America Editor Justin Webb.

It follows the publication last week by the Obama administration of four sensitive memos outlining harsh interrogation techniques approved for use by the CIA by the Bush government.

Rights groups have called for CIA personnel involved in any torture cases to be prosecuted, while critics say the move would endanger national security.

BBC NEWS | Americas | US to issue 'prison abuse' photos

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Sorry, Liebling.

No one will going after on Bush and you have get deal with it, however UN or foreign court has nothing with situation in US, also read above about US judge dismissed any cases about torture.

If US judge dismissed any torture cases against their own citizens, then is not right justice but cowards and hypocrites. It teachs people okay to torture other people and animals... *shake my head*

 

[ASLGAL]

Again, the interrogation techniques (NOT torture) were examined, presented, signed off on, and so on by many people - Dem and Rep.
I know it is difficult for many to wrap their brains around the fact that one man (Bush) cannot and did not singlehandedly put the techniques into play. That is supposed to be the beauty of a Republic with three equal branches.
Obama is not likely to , although he had done so since his campaigning, throw his entire Congresscritter contingent under the bus.

Smoke and mirrors seem to be this administrations most successful tools so far.

 

[Foxrac]

If US judge dismissed any torture cases against their own citizens, then is not right justice but cowards and hypocrites. It teachs people okay to torture other people and animals... *shake my head*

Obama admin don't want every cases to be taken to court and order all judge to dismiss any cases that is related to torture at Gitmo because not worth, lacks of evidence, cost alot to handle the cases and more other reason.

Torture is still existing in some countries like Iran and China.

 

[Foxrac]

Again, the interrogation techniques (NOT torture) were examined, presented, signed off on, and so on by many people - Dem and Rep.
I know it is difficult for many to wrap their brains around the fact that one man (Bush) cannot and did not singlehandedly put the techniques into play. That is supposed to be the beauty of a Republic with three equal branches.
Obama is not likely to , although he had done so since his campaigning, throw his entire Congresscritter contingent under the bus.

Smoke and mirrors seem to be this administrations most successful tools so far.

Yup, true so enough.

 

[Jiro]

Liebling - please give it up. Let this thread die. If you really want to some people within Bush Administration to be prosecuted... then you do understand that there will be many politicians (Democrats, Republicans, Senators, Congressmen, etc.) who will be investigated for their involvement in this issue? That also means Obama Administration will be investigated as well because there are some people in it from Bush Administration and during that time.

Simple - The Senate Committee & Congress will make sure this will not happen again.

 

[Foxrac]

Liebling - please give it up. Let this thread die. If you really want to some people within Bush Administration to be prosecuted... then you do understand that there will be many politicians (Democrats, Republicans, Senators, Congressmen, etc.) will be investigated for their involvement in this issue? That also means Obama Administration will be investigated as well because there are some people in it from Bush Administration and during that time.

Simple - The Senate Committee & Congress will make sure this will not happen again.

I don't think she would to give up.

Your post does make sense so perfect.

 

[SoS]

 

[Lighthouse77]

if they ever decide to make last term abortion illegal again, is it ok for us to list all the people who performed late term abortion, even punish them? Even if it was legal then?

I'm ok with Obama ending what he think is torture, but exposing people like that when they thought it was the best thing to do is just wrong. I think some people would be afraid to work for the gov't now knowing that everything they do will just come back and bite them.

 

[Lighthouse77]

When we put them in a prison, they become prisoners. Right to due process is afforded to all accused. All is a pretty encompassing term, Jiro. I think we can assume that ALL means that terrorists would be included in there. After all, there have been numerous terrorists arrested and tried in this country, and they were afforded due process under that good ole word "all".

I think prison is torture.