Posted on 10/17/2009 8:38:23 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
A U.S. federal judge has ruled that hundreds of documents detailing the Central Intelligence Agency's now-shuttered overseas secret detention program of suspected terrorists, including extreme interrogation methods, may be kept secret.
U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein on Wednesday refused to release documents describing Central Intelligence Agency terror interrogations, and the names of detainees or CIA contractors involved in the secret rendition program. He said he would defer to the CIA's judgment on the need to keep the papers secret in order to protect intelligence methods and sources.
The American Civil Liberties Union had asked for the release of 580 documents, including some that describe videotapes of CIA interrogations using extreme techniques, such as waterboarding, or simulated drowning. The CIA destroyed the actual videotapes in 2005.
The ACLU argued that the CIA secret program was illegal under international and U.S. law, that it involved the torture and deaths of some inmates, and therefore should not be shielded from public view.
Hellerstein said that he would not rule on whether or not the methods and practices described in the documents were legal. He said he agonized about such decisions but that in what he called a "post-9/11 world," he would not question the CIA's judgement about how to protect the intelligence gathering.
(Excerpt) Read more at globalsecurity.org ...
bttt
Doh!
So far as I know, no Moozie interrogated by the CIA post 9/11 has suffered permanent mental or physical injury or disfigurement (which I thought were defining criteria of torture) from waterboarding.
I am completely shocked to find a shred of reason making its way up to the surface during this Obama debacle. Oh well, The Messiah still has another 38 1/2 months to throw more peanut butter into the gears of liberty. We’ll never survive.
...Seems that actions or information obtained by the CIA is under the executive branch of government to keep secret or to release. Article II, Section 3, The Constitution of the United States. Enough said...
...(Fill in the blank time)...
Nonsense. Congress governs the captures of land and water, etc.
If Congress granted authority to the Executive, ie CIA to do such actions, carry on.
If not, it’s simple tyranny.
Hallelujah .. a sane judge!
Will Holder stand with this ruling??
...I agree with you, but, it is, and has been, unconstitutional for a long time, the fact that Congress has given the authority to a sitting president to wage war on a country, without a declaration of war is tyrannical...
...Saving the US or being it overthrown, I'd say, Bravo. But in the strict sense of the Rule of law, bending the Constitution for any reason opens up bending the Constitution for any reason...
...Is my logic wrong???
...Is my logic wrong???
Nope. You are spot-on.
Bill Clinton and Janet Reno—one of whose deputies was Eric Holder—invented the current version of extraordinary rendition in 1995 by partnering with Egypt. Obama has discarded waterboarding but retained rendition. You have to ask yourself, would you rather be “tortured†by the CIA or flown shackled and blindfolded 6,000 miles to some dungeon where a sadist with a blow torch asks the questions?
Bill Clinton and Janet Reno—one of whose deputies was Eric Holder—invented the current version of extraordinary rendition in 1995 by partnering with Egypt. Obama has discarded waterboarding but retained rendition. You have to ask yourself, would you rather be “tortured” by the CIA or flown shackled and blindfolded 6,000 miles to some dungeon where a sadist with a blow torch asks the questions?
Actually he only has 12 and change.
....nominated by President Bill Clinton on May 15, 1998
Okay, so you have to figure this guy Hellerstein is corrupt to the core, which leads me to believe that Ubama didn't want these docs released and simply told the judge what ruling he needed. Now the question is "why?" Perhaps Ubama is trying to make up with the CIA for letting his people pee all over the agency a few months ago?
The answer is supporting and defending the Constitution. When someone implies that it’s his duty to protect the country, then that allows many acts of treason. By just following the Const. you can defend both.
Likely the docs implicate various donk critters, show they were lying, make the CIA and the former administration look good and call the administration’s bluff.
Or the judge is not corrupt and is conservative on national security.
lol, I'll go with your first guess.
“Actually he only has 12 and change.”
Even with the loss of the House and/or Senate (hopefully both), Dims will still have The Messiah in 1600 and he has already shown how much havoc he can create with Executive Orders. I agree that the loss of an absolute majority will slow his train down, but it won’t bring it to a complete stop. For that, we must wait for 2012.
“Actually he only has 12 and change.”
Even with the loss of the House and/or Senate (hopefully both), Dims will still have The Messiah in 1600 and he has already shown how much havoc he can create with Executive Orders. I agree that the loss of an absolute majority will slow his train down, but it won’t bring it to a complete stop. For that, we must wait for 2012.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.