CIA Immunity: Fair or a Coverup?

see my comment here: http://edwardv.livejournal.com/179795.html

I opt for no. 2 – people have a tendency to talk about waterboarding but many detainees died due to torture and many remained disabled. You know, 9/11 was not the “perfect crime”. There are many unanswered questions about what happened that day. Many countries have serious doubts and some inquiries are being done around the world. Hopefully we'll find the truth. Yes it is a cover up I think Pentagon needed people to torture, drive them crazy and make them admit of being responsible for the attack in New York despite the fact that they are innocent. This is not my opinion, just read an article from an ex Bush aide Laurence Wilkerson saying that most of the detainees at GITMO are innocent so why the need to torture if it's not to cover up something that someone else did.

Talk is cheap. We are a nation of laws. We do not torture. Where there is clear evidence of criminal acts we will prosecute those that did it. Blah Blah Blah

The answer to whether Obama is covering up criminal activity or is being fair because he is accepting the, “I was just following orders” (defense???) will be shown when the question comes to do we prosecute those that purposely slanted the legal advice, and those that took that advice and said OK torture. In other words will we prosecute the folks that enabled and gave the OK orders those who don't have the, “I was following orders” defense?

I for one don't think so. We are being managed by the Obama administration. We are being slowly given bits and pieces of the record and evidence so as to get us ready and blase and then on some Friday night news dump the Obama group will say we are not going back. We will not investigate, nor will we prosecute the torture ordering folks.

In other words we will not say to the world we tortured, but it was an aberration. We will not make an example of the prostitute lawyers or the high officials that okayed torture, and unfortunately we will thereby create an environment that says you can do illegal things and not be prosecuted if you are scared, or if you want to ignore the law or just say it does not apply.

Our politicians who claim to be worried about the reputation of the US are willing to say and demonstrate to the world we are a, “Do as I say not as I do”, nation. Even though we helped create the laws that forbid torture and enforced them and prosecuted torturers after WWII, we did that because they were Nazis that tortured. However, we will not prosecute the current torturers because they are part of the previous administration.

Do you think if these torturers were private citizens that were trying to get commercial information out of some unfortunate lowly human being we would ignore torture?
Do we ignore serial killers that rape and torture ordinary citizens? Do we turn a blind eye to people that abuse children with burning cigarettes? No? What is the difference? Is not torture torture?

Oh, I see, torture of political prisoners by Previous Administration folks is “different”. It sure is. Its inconvenient and embarrassing and goes against the unspoken rule that you don't prosecute former high administration officials.

Look.. Obama is not stupid. He knows that Bush and his Administration were doing all of the right things when it comes to fighting terror and interrogating people. . He also knows that in order to shut the civil rights groups up.. which Bush and Co. couldn't.. he has to change tactics a bit. That's all this is, here. The article laments of “leaving the gate open”..? Of course it leaves the gate open!! Like I said.. Obama is far from stupid. He's as sly as a fox.! He knows how to muzzle his critics… even if they're on HIS side..

It's hard to imagine a more slick way of trying to subvert any investigation – and, accountability – than to do what he did. And I don't think even Obama believes the 'look forward, not backward' argument he is putting out.

Two main points:
1. Even if a special prosecutor ended up giving bottom-level folks immunity, s/he would 'use' them to build a case for prosecuting higher-ups based on testimony they'd give in return for some time of immunity. Obama has, (almost?) deliberately, sunk that option.

2. Saying that there will be no attempt at investigation/prosecution/accountability, simply because a memo was written and therefore people were acting in 'good faith' is b.s.: that is the same as saying 'they were just following orders” , which international law – international law we helped create at places like Nuremberg, clearly says is never an acceptable defense.

As someone who voted for Obama, I truly did not expect this from him. He is basically laying the groundwork for keeping all the illegal powers Cheney/Bush pulled to themselves, which requires that he not treat them seriously now. This is a coverup; a truly imperial one.

It's hard to imagine a more slick way of trying to subvert any investigation – and, accountability – than to do what he did. And I don't think even Obama believes the 'look forward, not backward' argument he is putting out.

Two main points:
1. Even if a special prosecutor ended up giving bottom-level folks immunity, s/he would 'use' them to build a case for prosecuting higher-ups based on testimony they'd give in return for some time of immunity. Obama has, (almost?) deliberately, sunk that option.

2. Saying that there will be no attempt at investigation/prosecution/accountability, simply because a memo was written and therefore people were acting in 'good faith' is b.s.: that is the same as saying 'they were just following orders” , which international law – international law we helped create at places like Nuremberg, clearly says is never an acceptable defense.

As someone who voted for Obama, I truly did not expect this from him. He is basically laying the groundwork for keeping all the illegal powers Cheney/Bush pulled to themselves, which requires that he not treat them seriously now. This is a coverup; a truly imperial one.

[...] See The Washington Independent, “CIA Immunity: Fair or Coverup,” April 16, 2009, a short piece with a notable quote, here: [...]