Abuse Issue Puts the C.I.A. and Justice Dept. at Odds

1. When leadership is lacking, intra-party infighting increases inevitably

2. You got the bluedogs vs the progressives vs Pelosi vs the freshmen in the house

3. You got certain elements within the blue delegation calling former teammates "brain dead"

4. You got Maxine Waters calling out Emanuel for bringing in too many centrists

5. There's Gene Green blaming Frisco Nance for running up cap and trade before health care

6. And now it's the CIA vs the Justice Dept

7. Panetta is the president's punching pillow

8. And the veteran apparatchik---former OMB director, Clinton's Chief of Staff, ex Budget Cmte Chair, bona fide adult---doesn't like it

9. Obama, to try to salvage some smidgen of respect, after the disastrous defeat of health care, opts to go after LOW LEVEL agents at Langley for making mean threats, blowing second hand cigarette smoke in bad guys' faces, and holding a Black and Decker power drill (Home Depot, $39.95) aside the hairy ear of Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and revving it really loud

10. The prez lacks the GUTS to go after the BIG BOYS

11. He'll never get a conviction, either---the evidence is too old and shady, the legal foundations too flimsy

12. Which leaves, therefore, only the cheap politics

13. A sop to his outraged liberal left this play can be interpreted as

14. Seen broadly, it's an error---POLITICALLY---of stunning proportion

15. America couldn't care less about the tender feelings of the world's cruelest criminals

16. Indeed, if anything, Americans feel we've been too SOFT

17. America worries over THE ECONOMY and sees partisan political hits as mistimed, misplaced and beneath where leadership's mindset should be

18. America craves SECURITY from international terror which is still unfortunately very REAL

19. Cheney and Holder/Pelosi already fought this out, long and hard, several months ago

20. Dick the Darth's polls actually climbed dramatically, while every pundit panned the president

21. On the WRONG SIDE of yet another issue is our TIN EARED (despite the largeness of the lobes) leader

22. No less than Serpent Head, James Carville, called Obama/Holder's move to appoint a prosecutor "terrible politics"

23. Meanwhile, morale within Langley is sure to suffer greatly

24. What agent is gonna put himself out for a president so lily livered, wishy washy, weak kneed and back stabbing?

25. How many times has Obama said he was gonna investigate "abuses," then he wasn't, then he was, then he wasn't?

26. Now, he insists he's going forward, but this is the last you'll hear of it from the White House---for months

27. Meanwhile, CRITICS of this clueless cabal will be constantly calling out Holder's crass capitalization of our counter-terrorist services

28. Which is all you really need to know

29. Normal Americans worry that our intelligence gathering and processing capacities are compromised for no more than political purpose

30. Meanwhile, the president insults all adults by asserting he has no part in this, AG Holder is acting purely independently---LOL!

31. Mr Panetta feels waylaid, he has received assurances from leadership that after the release of classified memos to the world in March there would be no prosecutors appointed

32. But then health care went down in flames and everything changed

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/us/politics/28intel.html?_r=1&hp

WASHINGTON — With the appointment of a prosecutor to investigate detainee abuses, long-simmering conflicts between the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department burst into plain view this week, threatening relations between two critical players on President Obama’s national security team.

The tension between the agencies complicates how the administration handles delicate national security issues, particularly the tracking and capturing of suspected terrorists overseas. It also may distract Mr. Obama, who is trying to move beyond the battles of the Bush years to focus on an ambitious domestic agenda, most notably health care legislation.

The strains became evident inside the administration in the past several weeks. In July, Leon E. Panetta, the C.I.A. director, tried to head off the investigation, administration officials said. He sent the C.I.A.’s top lawyer, Stephen W. Preston, to Justice to persuade aides to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to abandon any plans for an inquiry.

Mr. Preston presented what was, in effect, a closing argument in defense of the C.I.A., contending that many potential cases against intelligence operatives were legally flawed and noting that they had already been investigated, some more than once. In none, he said, had prosecutors found grounds for charges.

But the Justice Department was unmoved, officials said. Despite the C.I.A. pressure and the stated desire of the White House not to dwell on the past, Mr. Holder went ahead with an investigation that will determine whether agents broke the law in their brutal interrogations.

Click to expand...

The Prof

Re: CIA and DOJ at Odds

gonan catch a lot of **** on this one

Re: CIA and DOJ at Odds

CIA and DOJ at Odds

I will probably catch a lot of crap for this, but oh well....

The CIA is a non-partisan agency who's function is to protect America from foreign enemies. The DOJ is a government agency who's officers are appointed by and serve the presidential administration, that's responsible for upholding American law.

So this is basically a battle between:

1. Those who risk their lives to stop foreign invaders, and those who serve an administration that apologizes to them.
2. Those who stop radicals from trying to take over America, and those appointed by an administration full of radicals.
3. Those who give it their all to preserve the American way of life, and those appointed by an administration who have vowed to transform the American way of life.
4. Those who defend us from communists, and those appointed by an administration that employs communists.
5. Those who work to eradicate anti-American terrorists, and those appointed by a man who befriends and hires them.
6. Those who fight to cut off funding to foreign religious leaders who think America was to blame for 9/11, and those appointed by a man who's spiritual mentor, who he helped fund for 20 years, thinks America's to blame for 9/11.
7. Those that protect us against anti-capitalist enemies, and those appointed by an administration riddled with anti-capitalists.
8. Those that try and defeat foreign organizations that are an enemy to the US military, and those appointed by an administration that is supported by domestic organizations that oppose the US military.

***

I don't know what dog you all are picking in this race, but I'll take the one that's out there defending my freedom... The CIA.

.

Re: CIA and DOJ at Odds

Grim17 said:

CIA and DOJ at Odds

The DOJ is a government agency who's officers are appointed by and serve the presidential administration, that's responsible for upholding American law.

Click to expand...

Cheney often refers to the first investigation by DOJ lawyers, under the Bush administration, as proof that elements within the CIA (and Cheney himself) was cleared of wrongdoing.

It can be reasonably concluded per your above views on the DOJ, that you do not think the investigation Cheney mentions was adequate.

Since, in your words, the DOJ "serves" the administration in power.

Funny, but you're completely at odds with Cheney.

Re: CIA and DOJ at Odds

The_Limt said:

Cheney often refers to the first investigation by DOJ lawyers, under the Bush administration, as proof that elements within the CIA (and Cheney himself) was cleared of wrongdoing.

It can be reasonably concluded per your above views on the DOJ, that you do not think the investigation Cheney mentions was adequate.

Since, in your words, the DOJ "serves" the administration in power.

Funny, but you're completely at odds with Cheney.

Click to expand...

Wrong.

First, you misquoted me. I didn't say the DOJ serves the administration. What I said was:


The first investigation was conducted by career prosecutor's, none of which was appointed by the Bush Administration. It was a justified investigation that was not politically motivated in any way. The decision to now re-investigate this, was made by Obama appointee Eric Holder, and without a doubt is politically motivated. The public statements made by Holder prior to the election say it all. Without the benefit of knowing any of the facts, he vowed to investigate this crap to please the liberal/anti-Bush base, and now he's doing it.

Mark my words... This is a can of worms that will further erode the administrations public support if opened.


.

Re: CIA and DOJ at Odds

Grim17 said:

Wrong.

First, you misquoted me. I didn't say the DOJ serves the administration. What I said was:

The DOJ is a government agency who's officers are appointed by and serve the presidential administration​

The first investigation was conducted by career prosecutor's, none of which was appointed by the Bush Administration. It was a justified investigation that was not politically motivated in any way.

Click to expand...

I did not misquote you. I quoted your words directly. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Now onto your first point "The first investigation was conducted by career prosecutor's, none of which was appointed by the Bush Administration."

Are you absolutely sure on that? Are you more than confident the first investigation was not conducted by the Justice department? Can you verify that claim? Or would you like me to?

And by the way, the presently appointed special prosecutor is Republican, (his Name is Durham) and he is far from poltically motivated.

The rest of your post is partisan rhetoric and not of any interest to me.

Re: CIA and DOJ at Odds

The_Limt said:

I did not misquote you. I quoted your words directly. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Click to expand...

Lets take a look then...

You claim I said:

Since, in your words, the DOJ "serves" the administration in power.​

Here's my actual words:


But you didn't misquote me... lololol

.

Re: CIA and DOJ at Odds

Grim17 said:

Lets take a look then...

You claim I said:

Since, in your words, the DOJ "serves" the administration in power.​

Here's my actual words:

The DOJ is a government agency who's officers are appointed by and serve the presidential administration​

But you didn't misquote me... lololol

.

Click to expand...

I did not misquote you.

You said the word "serves." I quoted you directly. Do not try to wiggle your way out of your own words when it is so obvious and blatant.

Your position is quite clear.

When the DOJ conducts an inquiry under a Republican administration and Alberto Gonzalez (Might have been Michael Mukasey) appoints career prosecutors to head an investigation, it is apolitical.

When the DOJ conducts an inquiry under a Democratic administration and Eric Holder appoints career prosecutors to head an investigation, it is political.

Gothca.

PS Did you even read the first report?

Re: CIA and DOJ at Odds

I said that "officers" of the DOJ, such as Holder, are appointed by the administration. You claim I said the entire DOJ.

Big difference pal.

.

Re: CIA and DOJ at Odds

Grim17 said:

I said that "officers" of the DOJ, such as Holder, are appointed by the administration. You claim I said the entire DOJ.

Big difference pal.

.

Click to expand...

Wrong again, and quite inaccurate I might add.

You were making the point that investigations conducted by the DOJ under AG Holder are partisan, but investigations conducted by the DOJ under Mukasey and Gonzalez were not.

Are you aware it was Mukasey who blocked any further criminal probe after the OPR report? Again, a Bush appointment.

Like I said, your position is clear, quite hypocritical and certainly uninformed.

PS Did you even read the OPR report?

Re: CIA and DOJ at Odds

The point I'm making is, the original investigation was not a political one, but the one Holder is calling for now, most certainly is.

Why else would Holder call for an investigation into something that has already been investigated?

Obama's approval ratings had been dropping like a rock because of the health care debate, but had leveled off at around 50% last week. Now since the announcement of this political witch hunt, they are dropping yet again. Rassmusen's latest now has Obama at an all time low of 46%, and the Zogby poll released earlier today has his approval rating at 42%.

You can call this anything you want, but don't think for a second that the American people don't know exactly what this is. They understand perfectly what President "Hope & Change" is all about now, and it sure as hell isn't what they were promised.

.

Re: CIA and DOJ at Odds

Grim17 said:

The point I'm making is, the original investigation was not a political one, but the one Holder is calling for now, most certainly is.

Why else would Holder call for an investigation into something that has already been investigated?

Obama's approval ratings had been dropping like a rock because of the health care debate, but had leveled off at around 50% last week. Now since the announcement of this political witch hunt, they are dropping yet again. Rassmusen's latest now has Obama at an all time low of 46%, and the Zogby poll released earlier today has his approval rating at 42%.

You can call this anything you want, but don't think for a second that the American people don't know exactly what this is. They understand perfectly what President "Hope & Change" is all about now, and it sure as hell isn't what they were promised.



.

Click to expand...

You are not making a "point."

What you are doing is exhibiting bias in its most extreme and naked form.

Nevermind nine district attorneys were fired under Gonzalez because they were not 'Republican enough.'

Nevermind current special prosecutor Durham is a Republican.

Nevermind Mukasey blocked a criminal probe after the release of the OPR report, which blasted the behaviour of Bush attorneys Yoo, Baybee and Bradbury.

Nevermind that, unlike his predecessor, Obama and his key senior aides do not interfere with the DOJ.

According to Grim, when the DOJ is under a democratic regime anything it does is political. But when the DOJ is under a Republican regime, anything it does is apolitical.

The rest of your post remains repetitious prattle. It is wearisome factional discourse and not worth a comment.

Re: CIA and DOJ at Odds

Prof, the rules aren't that hard --

You must give the thread the same title as the article. Stop changing the title of the article to mislead people into reading your threads.

Abuse Issue Puts the C.I.A. and Justice Dept. at Odds

Is that so hard?

Re: CIA and DOJ at Odds

I hate to bring facts into this thread, but the CIA and DOJ have been at odds since well before Eric Holder was appointed as AG. They've been at odds since the FBI director determined that their "enhanced interrogation techniques" (aka torture) were probably in violation of the law, and the FBI agents would not be allowed to work alongside CIA agents. It has been a foregone conclusion since that point in time that heads were probably going to roll within the CIA.

AND SHOULD.