Monday, August 24, 2009

AG Holder Names Prosecutor to Investigate CIA Terrorist Interrogations

"She's a witch CIA Interrogator..burn her!"

The AG had this ready and was obviously waiting for Obama's final OK:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has decided to appoint a prosecutor to examine nearly a dozen cases in which CIA interrogators and contractors may have violated anti-torture laws and other statutes when they allegedly threatened terrorism suspects, according to two sources familiar with the move.

Holder is poised to name John Durham, a career Justice Department prosecutor from Connecticut, to lead the inquiry, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the process is not complete.

It also appears that Durham has 'issues' with the CIA anyway:

The attorney general selected Durham in part because the longtime prosecutor is familiar with the CIA and its past interrogation regime. For nearly two years, Durham has been probing whether laws against obstruction or false statements were violated in connection with the 2005 destruction of CIA videotapes. The tapes allegedly depicted brutal scenes including waterboarding of some of the agency's high value detainees. That inquiry is proceeding before a grand jury in Alexandria, although lawyers following the investigation have cast doubt on whether it will result in any criminal charges.

Nine GOP senators on the Senate on the Judiciary Committee spent time last week urging Holder not to do this.

"The intelligence community will be left to wonder whether actions taken today in the interest of national security will be subject to legal recriminations when the political winds shift," said the letter, signed by lawmakers including Sens. Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), John Cornyn (Tex.), Orrin Hatch (Utah) and Charles Grassley (Iowa).

These senators, unfortunately, are living in a dream world. Barack Obama needs to get people's minds off the healthcare debacle. And he needs to gin up his Angry Left base and his pals in the media. What better way than to pull something out of the old Obama playbook and demonize BushHitler one more time? It's always worked before, and in this administration politics trumps everything, even national security.

That's simply how it is.


Christian Atheist said...

Let the purges begin!

B.Poster said...

Isn't this how third world bannana republics operate? Doesn't the former leadership usually end up with their heads cut off or in prision when the new regime takes over? It really looks like America has degenerated into this kind of country.

President Bush was the worst president in US history. Of this fact, I think there can be little doubt. As such, "BushHitler" has a decent chance to work for the Democrats. At a minimum, it may take the minds of the voters off of the economy for a time, however, if the economy does not improve by the middle of next year the Democrats will face an uphill battle winning reelection. It really is all about the economy.

I think the "angry left" and I agree on two key areas. 1.)President Bush should have been impeached and should be jailed.
2.)The United States needs to withdraw all personnel from Iraq and Afghanistan immediately. While we agree, how we arrive at these conclusions are completely different. Also, we disagree on what should be done after a withdrawl of forces from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Given the enormous unpopularity of the former President and his staff, I think his chances of avoiding jail time are quite slim. I certainly don't envision any top legal talent rushing to his defense. No one wants to incurr the wrath of the Obama Administration or the American people.

In my opinion, his only chance is if he or his defense team can show how the interrogation techniques that the media and the left are so up in arms about actually saved American lives or prevented terrorist attacks. I suspect such information is available, however, this will likely be a kangaroo court. As such, getting this information out will be extremely difficult for the President, his Administration staff, and his defense team.

He couldn't be bothered to defend himself when he held the Presidency when he was slandered. Will he defend himself now? Time will tell.

Christian Atheist said...

I can't for the life of me figure out where you're coming from here. First you seem to bemoan the country's descent into madness and then you champion the jailing of a former POTUS over a policy difference. Which is it?
You don't like W or his policies. Fair enough.But prosecution? Talk about banana politics!
Re: Iraq and Afghanistan, right or wrong we're there. A precipitate withdrawal will only make us look weak and unsure of ourselves therby encouraging our enemies. That would be your boys China, Russia, Iran and the ever popular Venezuela (eyeroll).
I thought you were worried about them?
Do you really think we should encourage them this way?
I'm just askin'.

louielouie said...

and demonize BushHitler one more time

one more time????
you know something we don't?

B.Poster said...


Thanks for the reply to my post. Where I have a huge disagreement with President Bush is over his lax border security policies. In my opinion, this is treasonous. Unfortunately both major political parties are guilty of this treason. As such, I don't expect President Bush to be prosecuted over this. He is more likely to be prosecuted over making our enemies uncomfortable. In my opinion, this would be a stupid reason for prosecution.

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, we already look weak. Our current policies there don't seem to be working. Our enemies are steadily growing stronger while we are growing weaker. At least with a withdrawl of all forces to the American borders, we would actually have a chance to defend ourselves. Given that they have already been "encouraged", the only way to "discourage" them would be credible policy aimed at the defense of America.

In addition to this, we should develop all of our own oil and gas reserves, build more nuclear power plants, and more refineries. These actions along with border security and closely monitoring the mosques and placing a moratorium on all immigration for a minimum of ten years and an indefinite moratorium on immigration from Middle Eastern countries for an indefinite period of time will give us greater utility for our national security interests than remaining in Afghanistan or Iraq likely ever could.

If we are going to remain in Afghanistan and Iraq and if we do want to confront Russia and China, we are going to need to vastly increase the size and capability of our armed forces. With the massive national debt and the struggling economy I don't see where we are going to be able to get the funds to be able to afford to do this.

As such, our most viable option at this point is what I suggest above. At least it gives us a reasonable chance to defend ourselves.