Obama exempts CIA 'torture' staff

Critics say the methods approved in the memos amount to torture
CIA agents who used harsh interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects during the Bush era will not be prosecuted, US President Barack Obama has said.

The assurance came as memos were released detailing the range of techniques the CIA was allowed to use during the Bush administration.

Mr Obama banned the use of methods such as sleep deprivation and simulated drowning in his first week in office.

But rights groups have criticised the decision not to seek prosecutions.

Amnesty International said the Department of Justice appeared to be offering a "get-out-of-jail-free card" to individuals who were involved in acts of torture.

The Centre for Constitutional Rights, which has championed the legal rights of the "war on terror" detainees, also expressed its disappointment.

BUSH-ERA INTERROGATION
Waterboarding: Aimed at simulating sensation of drowning. Used on alleged 9/11 planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
Insect: Harmless insect to be placed with suspect in 'confinement box', suspect to be told the insect would sting. Approved for Abu Zubaydah, but not used
Walling: Detainee slammed repeatedly into false wall to create sound and shock
Sleep deprivation: Detainee shackled stading up. Used often, once for 180 hours


Interrogation: Obama's approach
"It is one of the deepest disappointments of this administration that it appears unwilling to uphold the law where crimes have been committed by former officials," it said in a statement.

However, the former head of the CIA under former President George W Bush, Gen Michael Hayden, said the White House move would undermine intelligence work and dissuade foreign agencies from sharing information with the CIA.

"If you want an intelligence service to work for you, they always work on the edge. That's just where they work," he told the Associated Press.

The Obama administration did not say that protection would extend to CIA agents who acted outside the boundaries laid out in the memos, or to those non-CIA staff involved in approving the interrogation limits.

That leaves open the possibility that those lawyers who crafted the legal opinions authorising the techniques, one of whom is now a federal judge, could yet face legal action.

But the BBC's North America editor Justin Webb, in Washington, says it seems that the Obama administration does not want any prosecutions and would like the matter closed.

Harsh techniques

The Obama administration said the move reiterated its previously-stated commitment to end the use of torture by its officers, and would protect those who acted within the limits set out by a previous legal opinion.

Announcing the release of the four memos, Attorney General Eric Holder said the US was being "consistent with our commitment to the rule of law".

"The president has halted the use of the interrogation techniques described in these opinions, and this administration has made clear from day one that it will not condone torture," he said.

The four secret memos detail the legal justification for the Bush-era CIA interrogation programme, whose methods critics say amounted to torture.

Mr Obama gave an assurance that "those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice, will not be subject to prosecution".

One of the documents contained legal authorisation for a list of specific harsh interrogation techniques, including pushing detainees against a wall, facial slaps, cramped confinement, stress positions and sleep deprivation.

The memo also authorises the use of "waterboarding", or simulated drowning, and the placing of a detainee into a confined space with an insect.

'Orwellian'

Critics of the Bush-era interrogation programme say the newly-released memos provide evidence that many of the methods amount to torture under US and international law.

"Bottom line here is you've had crimes committed," Amnesty International analyst Tom Parker told the BBC.

"These are criminal acts. Torture is illegal under American law, it's illegal under international law. America has an international obligation to prosecute the individuals who carry out these kind of acts."

Mr Parker said the decision to allow the use of insects in interrogation was reminiscent of the Room 101 nightmare described by George Orwell in his seminal novel, 1984.

The approved tactic - to place al-Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah, who is afraid of insects, inside a box filled with caterpillars but to tell him they were stinging insects - was never used.

Despite that, the memo was "incredibly depressing reading if you're somebody who loves America", Mr Parker said.

During his first week in office, President Obama issued an executive order officially outlawing the use of harsh interrogation techniques by the CIA, and forcing the agency to adhere to standards laid out in the US Army Field Manual.

The release of the memos stems from a request by civil rights group the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

But they will try any foreigner who commits a crime. As long as you're American and you commit crimes against foreigners, the Government doesn't care.

Great custodians of democracy and huiman rights!

@Justgood,

You mean those techniques are too harsh for people complicit in the killing of over 3,000 americans on 911? You guys are simply unbelievable.

.

@tpia,

just wondering. And how does this affect the Patriot Act? Is it going to be reviewed?

Forget all that story.  It will either be ignored or slightly modified without taking away the essential tools that Bush insisted upon.  The reality of governance is beginning to dawn on Obama and national security issues are not one that lends itself to simple solutions.  Please check out the following link - http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/16/obama_faces_deadline_today_over_release.  I'll post some salient points here.

Obama Administration Claims “Sovereign Immunity” in Attempt to Dismiss Lawsuit Against NSA over Domestic Surveillance

We speak to attorney and blogger Glenn Greenwald about how the Department of Justice has demanded the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation based on “state secrets” and “sovereign immunity.” Greenwald says the “sovereign immunity” claim is “of breathtaking scope—never before advanced even by the Bush administration—that the PATRIOT Act bars any lawsuits of any kind for illegal government surveillance unless there is ‘willful disclosure’ of the illegally intercepted communications.”

, the article suggests, in the Times, that these abuses are not Bush-era abuses but are abuses that are, according to the article, ones that took place in, quote, “recent months” and that the abuses were enabled by, caused by, the 2008 FISA law that the Democratic Congress, with the support of George Bush and Barack Obama, passed. And at the time, the opponents of that bill, across the board, were warning that what this bill does is it guts all the core safeguards that have been in place since the enactment of FISA in 1978 and that the exact kind of abuses that this article reports would be essentially inevitable.

And the other aspect that’s worth noting is, as you just said, ever since he was inaugurated, Barack Obama has been running around shunning his Justice Department, running around the country blocking all lawsuits that are ones that are brought against the National Security Agency and the Bush administration alleging that the NSA was illegally spying on the emails and telephone communications of Americans. He has been arguing that those programs are too secret to allow courts to look into, let alone adjudicate the legality of them. And so, he’s been protecting from disclosure the very abuses that the Times this morning reported.

And yet, last Friday, the Obama administration, the Justice Department, filed the first response to this lawsuit, one claiming that the Bush administration illegally spied on Americans, and what Obama said was, number one, that the program that the lawsuit is alleging occurred. The activities that it’s alleging are too secret, and grave national security harm would result if the court looked at this program and ruled on whether it was illegal, and thus demanded its dismissal.

And then the Obama administration invented a brand new radical argument that not even the Bush administration had espoused that says that the government is completely immune from any lawsuits for illegal spying, unless they deliberately or willfully disclose to the public what it is that they learned. So they basically said government officials are immune, when they break the law, from lawsuits, except in the narrowest of cases. And so, the Obama administration sought to bar any lawsuits against Bush officials for illegal spying, after they spent the last eight months assuring the public that Bush officials would still be held accountable even though telecoms were immune

The US ignoring international wars while criticizes other countries that do so is a sign of superiority complex. Torturing terrorist like some rogue state is barbaric.

@bawomolo,

The US ignoring international wars while criticizes other countries that do so is a sign of superiority complex.  Torturing terrorist like some rogue state is barbaric.

What international laws?  Does it trump the powers of your commander-in-chief in times of war?

By the way, what torture are we talking about here? I will like you guys to be specific.  When American laws are based on the principle of "No cruel and unusual punishment", do you think the masterminds of 911 have been subjected to comparable horror that the victims of 911 went through? I just need some common sense here.

Tayo-D:

@bawomolo,


By the way, what torture are we talking about here? I will like you guys to be specific.  When American laws are based on the principle of "No cruel and unusual punishment", do you think the masterminds of 911 have been subjected to comparable horror that the victims of 911 went through? I just need some common sense here.

I'm talking about inhumane stuff like waterboarding or depriving a prisoner of sleep.  They are human beings, whether you like it or not. 

What would be turkey's response to his treatment of kurdish prisoners? the US does it too so why should we care.

@bawomolo,

I'm talking about inhumane stuff like waterboarding or depriving a prisoner of sleep. They are human beings, whether you like it or not.

They are terrorists, not crimninals. A sane person who could plan such 911 attakcs without being under the influence of drugs needs to be tortured beyond measure. I can't believe we are discussing giving those people any form of reprieves! Victims of 911 are going through worse torture each day and we are here saying those people should not be discomforted in any way. As long as you can't prove that their punishment is more cruel than their crime, you have absolutely no point.

What would be turkey's response to his treatment of kurdish prisoners? the US does it too so why should we care.

If those Kurds commit terroristic acts like the people we are talking about here, then they deserve it and more. I have no compassion for Terrorists. You call it deterrence when terrorists know that all they would have to endure if caught is the loss of their freedoms through jail time? We should set all those criminals in jail free then. It is certainly not fair towards them.

bawomolo:

I'm talking about inhumane stuff like waterboarding or depriving a prisoner of sleep.  They are human beings, whether you like it or not. 

What would be turkey's response to his treatment of kurdish prisoners? the US does it too so why should we care.

No they are not. simple as that.
America is slowly walking into its own downfall . . . strenuously upholding some bogus "international laws" on human rights while those who are plotting day and night to destroy you don't give a fig. So its when terrorists fall into American hands that every one suddenly remembers terrorists are also humans? You think if 19 men flew planes into the Kremlin and killed 3000 Russians in less than 30 minutes Russia would care about humans when it moves to mow down most of the middle east?

Stay there playing political correctness.

Maybe i have different standards from you guys but what relevant info do you get from water boarding someone or torturing prisoners in Abu Grahib?

fighting barbarism with barbarism? Why not just try them in a court of law

bawomolo:

Maybe i have different standards from you guys but what relevant info do you get from water boarding someone or torturing prisoners in Abu Grahib?

fighting barbarism with barbarism? Why not just try them in a court of law

you dont have "different standards" . . . you're just one in a long list of blind folks who think that "civilization" is the same as being a dhimmi.
If you had "standards" you'd have realised that Abu Ghraib was a much worse prison before the US invasion. Infact mass graves have been discovered around the prison as far back as 1998 . . . no complaints from you folks.

You talk about "trying terrorists in a court of law" . . . well that doesnt make sense its better i dont even comment on that.

@bawomolo,

Maybe i have different standards from you guys but what relevant info do you get from water boarding someone or torturing prisoners in Abu Grahib?

Abu Sheikh Mohammed or whatever he is called gave useful information only after he was subjected to waterboarding. Was he actually beign drowned? (not that I am opposed to him being drowned) Absolutely not.

fighting barbarism with barbarism?  Why not just try them in a court of law

You obviously don't understand what is going on.  This is not a trial and it does not serve as punishment.  The procedure is meant to glean information from people.  This serves as intelligences that could help avoid another 911 or something of that nature.  They will indeed be tried as necessary - in a military court, and not a civil court.

@bawomolo,

Just thought to add the following. The only time they will eventually go to trial will be after the CIA is sure that there is no longer any actionable intelligence information they could glean out of those bastards. As long as they have some information, they are better kept alive as uncomfortably as possible till they have spilled out their guts and more. Then and only then would they be sent to trial and hopefully made to face the firing squad.

This serves as intelligences that could help avoid another 911 or something of that nature. They will indeed be tried as necessary - in a military court, and not a civil court.

The US had phone taps of the terrorists and knowledge of the calls from yemen but still didn't stop 911 from happening. You don't need to waterboard some Arab dude in a quest to gain information that you probably already have anyway. You are fooling yourself if you think the information gotten from torture are an integral part of US intelligence.

@bawomolo,

Intelligence is not considered actionable until there are corroborations from various sources. There is a lot of chatter out there.  It takes a lot of work and serious sifting of all those information before you determine what to act on.  Information from people like that only help to streamline what they should act upon.

So are you telling us they should ignore whatever knowledge people like him possess? And should they just ask them questions and politely back off if they refuse to answer?

Tayo-D:

@bawomolo,

Intelligence is not considered actionable until there are corroborations from various sources. There is a lot of chatter out there.  It takes a lot of work and serious sifting of all those information before you determine what to act on.  Information from people like that only help to streamline what they should act upon.

So are you telling us they should ignore whatever knowledge people like him possess? And should they just ask them questions and politely back off if they refuse to answer?

The Us was negligent when in came to 911. poor communication among the security services.

And yes back off if they refuse to cooperate.  They are the ones who would spend the rest of their lives in jail anyway.

@bawomolo,

Of course its easier to blame the US. True there was some adminstrative and procedural lapses before 911, but that does not excuse the animals that perpetrated the crime. They behaved like animals and should be treated as one. Whatever Bush did since 911 including so-called "torturing" of those animals has kept America safe. If those methods hasn't been worth their time, they wouldn't have continued with them. But for somone like you who sits on the outside, it is so easy to pontificate.

So tell me, you think the lives of the 3000 killed during 911 is not worth the discomfort of these terrorists if information that could have saved their lives could have been avoided through the so-called "torture"? I can't believe a reasonable person like you will take such a stand!

tayo have you considered the fact that some of those detainees might be innocent? some british citizens were arrested in afghanistan and sent to gitmo, they were later found to be innocent, returned to britain and now the islamic extremists are using that as a useful weapon in their extremist propaganda and it is working.

always try to see both sides. torturing does not keep america safe. it hurts the country and does no good. the US can be protected without it. all it takes is to maintain strong security. period.

@pres-elect,

tayo have you considered the fact that some of those detainees might be innocent? some british citizens were arrested in afghanistan and sent to gitmo, they were later found to be innocent, returned to britain and now the islamic extremists are using that as a useful weapon in their extremist propaganda and it is working.

Of course there will be innocent people in Gitmo, just as our criminal justice system have convicted innocent people who were either put in prison or some executed. Things like that are bound to happen and only God can fully reward and compensate the innocent in this case. As long as there is due diligence in identifying those that should be detained in Gitmo, I have no problem with it. The fact is that majority that are in that prison are there justifiably. Infact, those that have been released havebeen caught on the battle field and some have ended up as suicide bombers.

The extremists don't need that situation to continue in their propanganda.  They have always found every reason to justify their koranic-based hatred for anything western. How many people were held in Gitmo that justified the 911 attacks?

always try to see both sides. torturing does not keep america safe. it hurts the country and does no good. the US can be protected without it. all it takes is to maintain strong security. period.

My guy, information is very vital in keeping safe. If those no-good son of devils have such information, I justify any means necessary to glean that information out of them.  Are you guys aware that the enhanced interrogation methods you are talking about were only used on very few and high profile inmates?  You talk as if that is the norm for all the inmates.  That is simply not true.

I'm disappointed that Obama chose not to prosecute those torture-enablers in the CIA. Eric Holder needs to keep trying to convince Obama that prosecuting these foul elements in the CIA is the right thing to do.

Tayo-D:

Are you guys aware that the enhanced interrogation methods you are talking about were only used on very few and high profile inmates? You talk as if that is the norm for all the inmates. That is simply not true.

and were u aware that the most important information got from that khalid guy was got before the torture even started?

the best way to get information about an enemy is to get it from his family. if the west is at war with extreme islamic elements, then the west may depend heavily on moderate muslims? abu graib sky rocketed the violence in irag against the US forces where as the sunni awakening(alliance with the US forces to defeat al gaeda) help restore some level of peace.

think again tayo. this is not a democrat/republican/liberal/conservative issue. this is a sensitive issue important for security. in this day and age, common sense is prevailing

and o/p just a word of advice. . . .tell the gop that using karl rove and chenney to attack obama is senseless (it's just a gift to the democrats, like chenney endorsing old john last fall )

. . .they can try minnesota gov or lousiana gov. _{or palin}

i think he should have prosecuted them somehow. bush prosecuted the perpetrators of abu graib, which was the right thing to do. i dont know why obama chose to leave those in this case . . . . .talk of justice. . . american way

@pres-elect,

and were u aware that the most important information got from that khalid guy was got before the torture even started?

It will be good to be informed before making statements as the one above. Even Obama was not so bold as to declare that the enhanced interrogation techniques did not work. Now here is some information for you. You will find the link here: http://connpolitics.tv/index.php/2009/04/16/bush-torture-memos-released
A May 30, 2005, memo says that before the harsher methods were used on top al-Qaida detainee Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he refused to answer questions about pending plots against the United States.
“Soon, you will know,” he told them, according to the memo.
It says the interrogations later extracted details of a plot called the “second wave” to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into a building in Los Angeles.
Terror plots that were disrupted, the memos say, include the alleged effort by Jose Padilla to detonate a “dirty bomb” spreading nuclear radiation.

i think he should have prosecuted them somehow. bush prosecuted the perpetrators of abu graib, which was the right thing to do. i dont know why obama chose to leave those in this case . . . . .talk of justice. . . american way

I really thought you are smarter than this. But it appears anything Bush makes liberals jettison reason. How can you compare a rogue soldier who committed attrociies for the fun of it to what the CIA did? The CIA reps carried out the interrogations after receiving orders from the Presidency. Keep in mind that the Attorney General expressly said those techniques are not torture and gave approval for its use. When you start to criminalise actions taken after due consultations with the AG of previous administrations, how would you expect anyone to carry out their duties even when the current AG indicates it is within the bounds of the law? Think my firend, think!

sorry mr tayo, u are the one who needs to think, tell me, torture should be judged based on weather it was done for fun or for a ''good reason'' , are u serious? is this a joke? even after admitting that sometimes some innocent person may have been tortured?

what is the definition of a terrorist state? why wouldn't the UK accuse the US of being a rogue nation for arresting british nationals in the middle east and sending them to gitmo, torturing them and releasing them? if it was done by abacha it will be on CNN.
torture is wrong, dont matter if it was done by Idi Amin or by Bush. this is simple.
soon you'll tell me they were following orders? abi . . .?

for the usefulness of the torture in khalid's case, i'll get back to you when i lay my hands on the evidence again. i got that information somewhere. . . i'll get back to you on that

I am shocked at the extent some people will go to defend the indefensible.

THE US HAS TORTURED PEOPLE!

Torture is supposed to be barbaric and should not be used the way its been used especially by a country which claims to be the police of the world.
The same people trying to justify this torture will be up in arms if it was done by Zimbabwe or the Nigerian police. Anyone trying to occupy a moral high ground has to present himself as being clean.

@Justgood,

You mean those techniques are too harsh for people complicit in the killing of over 3,000 americans on 911? You guys are simply unbelievable.

@Tayo, you mean it is alright to torture people to get information out of them?

JustGood:

@Tayo, you mean it is alright to torture people to get information out of them?

Most Republicans believe it is.

RichyBlacK:

Most Republicans believe it is.

Hopefully most republicans also believe that it was alright for Saddam Hussein to torture his enemies. AND that its okay for Mugabe to torture his enemies

JustGood:

@Tayo, you mean it is alright to torture people to get information out of them?

RichyBlacK:

Most Republicans believe it is.

actually i dont think most republicans believe this, but if Obama is against torture, then the republicans will have to defend torture. Just to oppose the president . . . . .

afterall, the republican party is the party of god

Let's remember that US is stronger "by the power of its example rather than the example of its power" If US did not sign up to Geneva convention then it would be a different thing. Then ,what does "American does not torture" stand for?
Also remember that US won cold war over Soviets by strongly espousing and defending American values like, free society,deomocracy, and capitalism etc instead of towing the line of communism. There has to be an American standard that towers above standards set by non state actors like terrorists. I think that US should have been upfront about terrorist interrogation mechanisms instead of misrepresenting the facts.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1893509,00.html

this is a watered down version of the original article. . .

Dumb Intelligence

It's easy to forget that when the U.S. began interrogating al-Qaeda operatives in 2002, the CIA had no idea what it was doing. The last time the agency had been charged with conducting hostile interrogations was during the Vietnam era, and most of those officers were long retired. The wisdom inside the CIA has always been that the best intelligence is obtained through persuasion rather than coercion. New CIA recruits have even been counseled against using blackmail because the information it produced couldn't be relied on.

When the CIA was asked to resume hostile interrogations after Sept. 11, some agency leaders were dead set against it, arguing that the military was better equipped for the task. But Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld insisted the job belonged to the CIA. We now know that Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in one month. His interrogator, a former CIA colleague of mine, admits he had almost no training in the technique and knew nothing about how the cumulative effect of waterboarding might affect the quality of the information he was trying to extract.

President Obama's decision to declassify Justice Department memos detailing the interrogation techniques legalized by his predecessor has sparked a predictable partisan furor. Bush Administration officials say the release has somehow compromised national security and let the enemy in on our secrets--even though U.S. interrogators' use of harsh and even sadistic techniques has been known for years. Liberals criticized the President for initially rejecting the idea of prosecuting former Bush officials, though Obama later said he is open to a 9/11-commission-style inquiry into interrogation abuses.

That would be a start. Obama shouldn't stop at declassifying the memos. He needs to launch a full-scale investigation into our intelligence-gathering practices over the past eight years, because once you get past the details of what was made legal to fight the war on terrorism, there's an even starker realization: we tortured people for almost no verifiable information.

Obama apparently spent weeks debating the merits of releasing the documents and was lobbied by CIA Director Leon Panetta to keep them classified. In the end, the case for transparency was too great. The harsh tactics--isolation, sleep deprivation, humiliation, waterboarding--not only had been widely reported, but much of it was also acknowledged to have originated in "Communist Attempts to Elicit False Confessions from Air Force Prisoners of War," a 1957 article written for the Air Force about abusive Chinese interrogations of U.S. troops during the Korean War. Anyone who wanted to could find it via Google for years.

get a copy of this weeks time for the full article


the long and short of it comes down to the first line - the torture memos proved that the US sacrificed its moral authority for nothing

nairaland is chock full of 'americans'( most of them never even get green card) who like to tell us that the US stands for freedom, rights  blah, blah blah. sadly, the united states has failed an acid test. when the going gets tough, the so called 'american values' go out the window.