No Immunity For Bad Faith Interrogators

« Did Obama/Holder Really Grant Immunity? | Main | Russ Feingold's Reaction »

Apr 16 2009, 5:10 pm by Marc Ambinder

Senior administration officials have made it clear to me: neither President Obama's statement nor Attorney General Holder's words were meant to foreclose the possibility of prosecuting CIA officers who did NOT act in good faith, or who did not act according to the guidelines spelled out by the OLC.

So it's not correct to say that the administration granted blanket immunity to anyone.

Comments (3)

Andrew Perez April 16, 2009 10:51 PM

There is no "bad faith" vs. "good faith" torture.

Article two of the Convention Against Torture states that "An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture."

jb April 17, 2009 10:18 AM

1. The US is not a signatory.
2. Define "severe" as found in article 1. From a cursory look at the OLC decisions it appeared to me that the determination that the acts being enforced were not considered to provide "severe" harm. Based on that finding it found that the acts were legal.

Better Than Machines April 20, 2009 12:19 AM

How does this fit with what Rahm Emanuel said on ABC's "This Week"? It seemed to slam the door shut:

"Those who devised the policy, [the president] believes that they were, should not be prosecuted either." [sic]

I hope Rahm was just off script.