Note: The following text is a quote:
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2009/ag-testimony-090824.html
Statement of Attorney General Eric Holder Regarding a Preliminary Review into the Interrogation of Certain Detainees
Monday, August 24, 2009
“The Office of Professional Responsibility has now submitted to me its report regarding the Office of Legal Counsel memoranda related to so-called enhanced interrogation techniques. I hope to be able to make as much of that report available as possible after it undergoes a declassification review and other steps. Among other findings, the report recommends that the Department reexamine previous decisions to decline prosecution in several cases related to the interrogation of certain detainees.
“I have reviewed the OPR report in depth. Moreover, I have closely examined the full, still-classified version of the 2004 CIA Inspector General’s report, as well as other relevant information available to the Department. As a result of my analysis of all of this material, I have concluded that the information known to me warrants opening a preliminary review into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations. The Department regularly uses preliminary reviews to gather information to determine whether there is sufficient predication to warrant a full investigation of a matter. I want to emphasize that neither the opening of a preliminary review nor, if evidence warrants it, the commencement of a full investigation, means that charges will necessarily follow.
“Assistant United States Attorney John Durham was appointed in 2008 by then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate the destruction of CIA videotapes of detainee interrogations. During the course of that investigation, Mr. Durham has gained great familiarity with much of the information that is relevant to the matter at hand. Accordingly, I have decided to expand his mandate to encompass this related review. Mr. Durham, who is a career prosecutor with the Department of Justice and who has assembled a strong investigative team of experienced professionals, will recommend to me whether there is sufficient predication for a full investigation into whether the law was violated in connection with the interrogation of certain detainees.
“There are those who will use my decision to open a preliminary review as a means of broadly criticizing the work of our nation’s intelligence community. I could not disagree more with that view. The men and women in our intelligence community perform an incredibly important service to our nation, and they often do so under difficult and dangerous circumstances. They deserve our respect and gratitude for the work they do. Further, they need to be protected from legal jeopardy when they act in good faith and within the scope of legal guidance. That is why I have made it clear in the past that the Department of Justice will not prosecute anyone who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the interrogation of detainees. I want to reiterate that point today, and to underscore the fact that this preliminary review will not focus on those individuals.
“I share the President’s conviction that as a nation, we must, to the extent possible, look forward and not backward when it comes to issues such as these. While this Department will follow its obligation to take this preliminary step to examine possible violations of law, we will not allow our important work of keeping the American people safe to be sidetracked.
“I fully realize that my decision to commence this preliminary review will be controversial. As Attorney General, my duty is to examine the facts and to follow the law. 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.”
###
Note: The following text is a quote:
THE BRIEFING ROOM
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_______________________________________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 24, 2009
Statement from the Press Secretary on the Department of Justice Inquiry
The President has said repeatedly that he wants to look forward, not back, and the President agrees with the Attorney General that those who acted in good faith and within the scope of legal guidance should not be prosecuted. Ultimately, determinations about whether someone broke the law are made independently by the Attorney General.
Thanks to the Swarthy Guy for the ping to this post.
“Pink Blankie Alert”
ORBAT ^ | 8-23-09 | Ravi Rikhye
Posted on August 24, 2009 11:38:46 AM PDT by swarthyguy
ON THE INTERNET - A TIME CAPSULE SAMPLER:
www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/24/justice-dept-advises-pursuing-cia-abuses/
“Holder to Appoint Special Prosecutor to Probe Terror Suspect Interrogations
The decision comes as the Department of Justice releases a 2004 report from the CIA’s inspector general detailing allegations of harsh interrogation practices.”
FOXNews.com
Monday, August 24, 2009
###
###
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/24/AR2009082401743_pf.html
“Holder to Appoint Prosecutor to Investigate CIA Terror Interrogations”
By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 24, 2009 2:23 PM
###
###
english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/08/2009824194527984688.html
UPDATED ON:
TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 2009
00:59 MECCA TIME, 21:59 GMT
“NEWS AMERICAS
CIA report alleges detainee abuse”
#
english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/08/200982122735144266.html
UPDATED ON:
FRIDAY, AUGUST 21, 2009
07:04 MECCA TIME, 04:04 GMT
NEWS AMERICAS
“Blackwater ‘used in al-Qaeda plot’”
#
www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?type=News
Hmmm....I made an educated guess to Congressman King’s question in less than .5 seconds.
#
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/027359.php
August 26, 2009
“Congressman Peter King on Obama Administration: “You wonder which side they’re on””
SNIPPET: “King: “You’re talking about threatening to kill a guy, threatening to attack his family, threatening to use an electric drill on him — but never doing it. You have that on the one hand — and on the other you have the [interrogator’s] attempt to prevent thousands of Americans from being killed” by Islamic jihadists.
Another, and particularly apt, Which-Side-Is-Obama-On Update: “King on Holder: ‘You wonder which side they’re on,’” by Ben Smith at Politico, August 25 (thanks to Benedict):
A “furious” Rep. Peter King, the hawkish, maverick Long Island Republican, blasted a “disgraceful” Eric Holder for opening an investigation of CIA interrogators and chided his own party for what he described as a weak response to the move in an interview just now with POLITICO.
“It’s bulls***. It’s disgraceful. You wonder which side they’re on,” he said of the attorney general’s move, which he described as a “declaration of war against the CIA, and against common sense.”
“It’s a total breach of faith, and either the president is intentionally caving to the left wing of his party or he’s lost control of his administration,” said King, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Homeland Security and a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence.”
Thank you special emailer for a link to this letter:
Note: The following text is a quote:
1
September 18, 2009
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. President:
We have served as Directors of Central Intelligence or Directors of the CIA for
Presidents reaching back over 35 years. We respectfully urge you to exercise your
authority to reverse Attorney General Holder’s August 24 decision to re-open the
criminal investigation of CIA interrogations that took place following the attacks of
September 11.
Our reasons for making this recommendation are as follows.
The post-September 11 interrogations for which the Attorney General is opening
an inquiry were investigated four years ago by career prosecutors. The CIA, at its own
initiative, forwarded fewer than 20 instances where Agency officers appeared to have
acted beyond their existing legal authorities. Career prosecutors under the supervision
of the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia determined that one prosecution
(of a CIA contractor) was warranted. A conviction was later obtained. They determined
that prosecutions were not warranted in the other cases. In a number of these cases
the CIA subsequently took administrative disciplinary steps against the individuals
involved. Attorney General Holder’s decision to re-open the criminal investigation
creates an atmosphere of continuous jeopardy for those whose cases the Department
of Justice had previously declined to prosecute. Moreover, there is no reason to expect
that the re-opened criminal investigation will remain narrowly focused.
If criminal investigations closed by career prosecutors during one administration
can so easily be reopened at the direction of political appointees in the next,
declinations of prosecution will be rendered meaningless. Those men and women who
undertake difficult intelligence assignments in the aftermath of an attack such as
September 11 must believe there is permanence in the legal rules that govern their
actions. They must be free, as the Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security
Committee, Senator Lieberman, has put it: “to do their dangerous and critical jobs
without worrying that years from now a future Attorney General will authorize a
criminal investigation of them for behavior that a previous Attorney General concluded
was authorized and legal.” Similar deference needs to be shown to fact-based decisions
made by career prosecutors years ago.
Not only will some members of the intelligence community be subjected to
costly financial and other burdens from what amounts to endless criminal
investigations, but this approach will seriously damage the willingness of many other
2
intelligence officers to take risks to protect the country. In our judgment such risk-
taking is vital to success in the long and difficult fight against the terrorists who continue
to threaten us.
Success in intelligence often depends on surprise and deception and on creating
uncertainty in the mind of an enemy. As President you have the authority to make
decisions restricting substantive interrogation or any other intelligence collection
method, based on legal analyses and policy recommendations. But, the administration
must be mindful that public disclosure about past intelligence operations can only help
Al Qaeda elude US intelligence and plan future operations. Disclosures about CIA
collection operations have and will continue to make it harder for intelligence officers to
maintain the momentum of operations that have saved lives and helped protect
America from further attacks.
Finally, another certain result of these reopened investigations is the serious
damage done to our intelligence community’s ability to obtain the cooperation of
foreign intelligence agencies. Foreign services are already greatly concerned about the
United States’ inability to maintain any secrets. They rightly fear that, through these
additional investigations and the court proceedings that could follow, terrorists may
learn how other countries came to our assistance in a time of peril. The United States
promised these foreign countries that their cooperation would never be disclosed. As a
result of the zeal on the part of some to uncover every action taken in the post-9/11
period, many countries may decide that they can no longer safely share intelligence or
cooperate with us on future counter-terrorist operations. They simply cannot rely on
our promises of secrecy.
We support your stated commitment, Mr. President, to look to the future
regarding these important issues. In our judgment the only way that is possible is if the
criminal investigation of these interrogations that Attorney General Holder has re-
opened is now re-closed.
Sincerely,
Michael Hayden
Porter Goss
George Tenet
John Deutch
R. James Woolsey
William Webster
James R. Schlesinger