The Bush administration review plot thickens: Dianne Feinstein's (D-CA) Senate Intelligence Committee announced Thursday that it will undertake a year-long investigation of CIA detention and interrogation policies under the Bush administration, procuring documents and conducting interviews with officials "as are necessary to fully
understand the creation and operation" of the CIA's policies and programs.
Which seems like good news for those seeking a harder look back at the Bush years--but although the investigation is the second into Bush-era policy (the Department of Justice is conducting its own at President Obama's request, to be completed within 180 days), it may not be enough to satisfy some on the left, and the push for aggressive, punitive review of the Bush days is likely to continue.
Feinstein's committee says it will examine interrogation policy, detention policy, whether the CIA lied about its programs to other parts of the government, and what intelligence was gained through aggressive interrogation tactics. Taken from the committee's announcement, the investigation will specifically cover:
• How the CIA created, operated, and maintained its detention and interrogation program;But while some on the left are hungry for punishment, the committee's investigation is unlikely to lead to prosecutions: according to the Associated Press, however, CIA Director Leon Panetta said in a memo to agency employees that those who took part in harsh interrogations will not be punished as a result of the investigation.
• How CIA's assessments that detainees possessed relevant information were made;
• Whether the CIA accurately described the detention and interrogation program to other parts of the U.S. government, including the Office of Legal Counsel and the Senate Intelligence Committee;
• Whether the CIA implemented the program in compliance with official guidance, including covert action findings, Office of Legal Counsel opinions, and CIA policy;
• An evaluation of intelligence information gained through the use of enhanced and standard interrogation techniques.
(The memo also signaled, according to a source familiar with the issue, that the agency would cooperate with the review--a major step away from the previous eight years.)
Most notably, however, it's unclear how much, if any, of the review will be made public: the committee will make that decision at the appropriate time, according to a source.
Hence, some mixed feelings among those who want a public investigation with criminal ramifications.
"At long last, it's extremely good that the Intelligence Committee is going to take a long and hard look at the interrogation policies and follow the chain of command as to who made which decisions and who approved which decisions," Center for Constitutional Rights Executive Director Vincent Warren told me in a phone interview. His group was one of over 20 to call on Attorney General Eric Holder in February to launch a criminal investigation of the Bush administration.
But Warren says he's "very concerned" that the information gathered by the committee should be made public.
"The only reason why this harsh interrogation program, this abusive interrogation program, has been able to go on for so long is that it's been shielded from public review, it's been shielded from congressional oversight, and it's been shielded in the courts," said Warren, whose group represents many detainees. "If we've learned any lesson in the last eight yeas, it's that what's happening to our clients should be made public, and that the people who were involved in these activities...should be held accountable."
So while Feinstein's committee is taking that long, hard look at the CIA, it's unlikely that the investigation will satisfy those on the left and in the civil liberties community calling for open proceedings and criminal ramifications to prove, more forcefully, the axiom "no one is above the law."
The Democratic Congress--and the Intelligence Committee, to be sure--have caught criticism for not being more assertive in exercising oversight of the Bush administration. Today's announcement may start to alleviate those concerns, especially as Feinstein has already taken a more assertive role in reviewing the Bush administration than her predecessor on the committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), but it all depends on how much faith groups like Warren's have in Congress's dedication to charging hard after secrets.
Whether or not the Senate Intelligence Committee is the place for punitive, public review is another matter--and certainly the committee almost never discloses the information it gets, as a policy. But those who have criticized Congress in the past, while happy that Feinstein is instigating this intensive oversight, likely won't get much quieter as a result.
When I reported to Feinstein the fbi/cia efforts to torture & kill me, she ignored her responsibilities and allowed the two terrorists groups to continue their crimes as I have reported at http://www.sosbeevfbi.com. She also supports the fbi/cia and covers up their atrocities. She is a member of the LD and is incapable of oversight of the killers and torturers of intel agencies.
http://roma.indymedia.org/printable/taxonomy/term/1549
http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/part4-worldinabo.html
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/11/382350.shtml?discuss
http://sosbeevfbi.ning.com/forum/topics/revolution-1
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_7Bqr1I5gzyk/SZ1-IPNv5cI/AAAAAAAACxs/cMPm2IPGYH4/s1600-h/aaafa28564d_a8e0_4d73_b38d_97b041d2002f_pobj_mini_1.jpg
They should also be investigated on how they treated their double agents during the cold war.
Visit: http://www.boriskorczak.com
Dear Chris Good,
Could you please use less "straw men" in your writing.
Are you retarded? Isn't the committee led by leading figures of the Left? Or are you just an asshole, trying to advance the claim and pigeon hole those, who think we should not rule out prosecutions for those who allegedly tortured people to death until we've actually investigated the allegations, as members of a fringe Left, further left than prominent Democratic Senators? And since those making the claim are from a fringe left, we should treat these claims, with the same degree of seriousness that we treat claims by their symmetrical counterparts i.e. the far right, talk radio land; regardless of the actual underlying merits of the issue. There actually is a fringe out there who shouldn't be taken too seriously, like the two commentators before me. But don't lump the civil libertarians in with the tin hat/black helicopters crowd. Is that too much to ask?
Could you identify those who are "hungry for punishment"? Or is justice in your mind synonymous with Sadism, which is the implication you make. Why not say, "lusting for retribution." But hey, you "write for The Atlantic now," so you must be doing something right. Definitely not a douchebag.
If individuals violated universal norms of human decency i.e. torturing people to death, which is illegal, then I have two concerns:
1. We should investigate those allegations and submit them for prosecution if appropriate. I take this stance because we're legally obligated to under Art. 7(1) of the UN Convention against Torture. This isn't some, ploy for "let's get the GOP." It's merely the fucking law of the land. Or should we only prosecute torture, when the blood, is not actually on our hands?
Literally, at least one hundred individuals have been tortured to death under US custody. Sure, some arguing for prosecutions could be political opportunists. But I'm not, and does Vincent Warren, who you quote at length, seem like he's hungry for punishment. No, you ass, he represents individuals who have been punished, and in some cases tortured, without any charges brought against them. And you try spinning this around so that the Vincent Warren's of the world are out for retribution. Seriously, go F yourself. And none of this changes the underlying facts of the matter, being, that we are legally obligated to investigate this! Does this not matter at all? Am I just a stickler for rules because I want to see individuals who tortured under our name face legal scrutiny. Jesus F------- Christ!
2. I do not want future US administrations to torture individuals in our custody, nor do I wish that our adversaries feel more comfortable torturing our citizens. That's what happens if you do not punish crimes or refuse to fulfill one's obligations to multilateral treaties containing binding obligations on State treatment of individuals.
A friend of mine in college was busted for possession of marijuana and had to pay a fine and get a lawyer and deal with this drawn out process. Had he said at his hearing, "let's look forward, and not dwell on the past; mistakes were made, but what's important is making sure no more violations continue," he would've been laughed out of court. But if you make those types of arguments in the torture context, (you get an internship at The New Republic) you get status quo institutions, rising up to argue why investigating torture is so counter-productive, or nothing more than "gotcha," or a witch hunt.
Well, sometimes there really are witches out there.
So, for your lazy "framing" of the issues, Go F yourself.
P.S.
Actually, the article itself is fairly balanced.
But, the straw man argument I earlier identified, and your editor's headline:
Are more appropriate for the sound bite world of Cable News.
Like, why can't you say, "Will this satisfy our legal obligations under the Geneva Conventions on Torture?"
Don't be a douchebag. Think before you write. You don't have to frame the issues, as if they are smack dab in the middle of the two arguing sides. (Well GOP says the sky is yellow, Dems say red, so let's treat the issue as if the sky is orange).
So, how about you frame the title and headline as how the issue actually is (and which your article, actually does a pretty good job of doing). Will this investigation have any teeth, or will this investigation merely whitewash the past?
Do you think that The dems douche bags will revel the TRUTH about what went on in a Republican adminstration?? (I don't).They lie and cover thier own butts every time they open thier mouths.
The information that will be exposed to the public will be all one sided pointing blame at Mr Bush.
Why stop with the last 8 years lets go back to 1776 and cover it ALL. WAR is HELL.. Sometimes you have to do what you have to do to get the information that saves lives.
I know that in KOREA I did every thing I could to stay alive and save lives of fellow Americans and I don't feel guilty about it.If I hadn't a lot of our boys would still be over there in shallow graves.You don't play patty cake with the enemy (not for very long anyway)
When our enemy dosn't adhere to the Geneva convention why in hell should we???
If they want to know about torture they should talk to some of our boys who spent some time as a P.O.W., I'm sure they will get an ear full.
Just the thoughts of a disabled vet.