• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lawyers Showed Photos of Covert CIA Officers to Guantanamo Bay Detainees

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Lawyers Showed Photos of Covert CIA Officers to Guantanamo Bay Detainees - washingtonpost.com

The Justice Department recently questioned military defense attorneys at Guantanamo Bay about whether photographs of CIA personnel, including covert officers, were unlawfully provided to detainees charged with organizing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to sources familiar with the investigation.

Investigators are looking into allegations that laws protecting classified information were breached when three lawyers showed their clients the photographs, the sources said. The lawyers were apparently attempting to identify CIA officers and contractors involved in the agency's interrogation of suspected al-Qaeda terrorists in facilities outside the United States, where the agency employed harsh techniques.

...

The photos were taken by researchers hired by the John Adams Project, a joint effort of the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, to support military counsel at Guantanamo Bay, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the inquiry. It was unclear whether the Justice Department is also examining those organizations.

Both groups have long said that they will zealously investigate the CIA's interrogation program at "black sites" worldwide as part of the defense of their clients. But government investigators are now looking into whether the defense team went too far by allegedly showing the detainees the photos of CIA officers, in some cases surreptitiously taken outside their homes.

Let me get this straight: Some attorneys from the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers used information obtained in the course of defending their clients to hire investigators to take pictures of covert CIA operatives, and then showed them to Guantanamo detainees.

You've got to be ****ing kidding me.

There's a difference between zealous advocacy and....this. This is just wrong.
 
Lawyers Showed Photos of Covert CIA Officers to Guantanamo Bay Detainees - washingtonpost.com



Let me get this straight: Some attorneys from the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers used information obtained in the course of defending their clients to hire investigators to take pictures of covert CIA operatives, and then showed them to Guantanamo detainees.

You've got to be ****ing kidding me.

There's a difference between zealous advocacy and....this. This is just wrong.

This may indeed put our agents at risk and is extremely wrong. These groups should be charged just as those involved in the Plame leak.
 
Lawyers Showed Photos of Covert CIA Officers to Guantanamo Bay Detainees - washingtonpost.com



Let me get this straight: Some attorneys from the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers used information obtained in the course of defending their clients to hire investigators to take pictures of covert CIA operatives, and then showed them to Guantanamo detainees.

You've got to be ****ing kidding me.

There's a difference between zealous advocacy and....this. This is just wrong.
Get a grip, Right. What's the big deal? They took a few pictures of covert CIA operatives, that's all. Just their faces and a few identifying characteristics. It's not like anybody's name was published in the Washington Post by Robert Novak.
 
Try them and their clients for espionage. Seriously, imagine if they'd done this with Soviet agents back in the day...
 
Lawyers Showed Photos of Covert CIA Officers to Guantanamo Bay Detainees - washingtonpost.com



Let me get this straight: Some attorneys from the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers used information obtained in the course of defending their clients to hire investigators to take pictures of covert CIA operatives, and then showed them to Guantanamo detainees.

You've got to be ****ing kidding me.

There's a difference between zealous advocacy and....this. This is just wrong.

I have never heard of a more clear cut case of treason in my life they should be tried, and if convicted executed, if true this is a clear cut case of giving material aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime.
 
Get a grip, Right. What's the big deal? They took a few pictures of covert CIA operatives, that's all. Just their faces and a few identifying characteristics. It's not like anybody's name was published in the Washington Post by Robert Novak.

You mean a non-covert agent previously outed by the CIA itself not to mention by her own husband who was busy trying to get credibility for his bull**** Niger story by peddling his wife's name around to every reporter who would listen, that's how Armitage knew she was CIA in the first place, but don't let the facts stand in the way of a good smear campaign.
 
This is treason, plain and simple. They should be tried and if found guilty, they should be executed.
 
Lawyers Showed Photos of Covert CIA Officers to Guantanamo Bay Detainees - washingtonpost.com



Let me get this straight: Some attorneys from the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers used information obtained in the course of defending their clients to hire investigators to take pictures of covert CIA operatives, and then showed them to Guantanamo detainees.

You've got to be ****ing kidding me.

There's a difference between zealous advocacy and....this. This is just wrong.

Let's not jump the gun here. From your source:

It is also unclear whether the inquiry involves violations of federal statutes prohibiting the identification of covert CIA officers or violations of military commission rules governing the disclosure of classified information, including to the defendants...

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers also declined to address the specifics of the inquiry but questioned its timing.

It is "customary in our experience that any kind of investigation like these are conducted after legal proceedings are finished in the case so as not to interfere with the defense function, not to interfere with the rights of defendants, not to give the appearance that the government is looking to chill the defense function," said Joshua L. Dratel, counsel for the John Adams Project and a former board member of the NACDL, who spoke on behalf of the group.

There are some real questions here, and I stick with my consistent point in any case of possible wrongdoing, since there is evidence of possible wrongdoing, investigate and if there is evidence of criminal wrongdoing, prosecute. Right now, all we have is vague accusations, which is not enough to convict on, so let's back off the over the top rhetoric.
 
Lawyers Showed Photos of Covert CIA Officers to Guantanamo Bay Detainees - washingtonpost.com



Let me get this straight: Some attorneys from the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers used information obtained in the course of defending their clients to hire investigators to take pictures of covert CIA operatives, and then showed them to Guantanamo detainees.

You've got to be ****ing kidding me.



There's a difference between zealous advocacy and....this. This is just wrong.

Sound like you are outraged that laws were broken?

Finally! We have a true law and order Conservative! I thought they were extinct!

Or do we?

Tell us! Are you concerned when anyone breaks the law or only when the "bad guys" break the law?

Also please post threads started by yourself that expressed outrage or concern for lawbreaking under the Bush Administration?

I'll glady send you $10 per link for your time!

It's worth it to me to show this forum that we still have a true law and order Conservatives who stand for the Rule of Law in our midst rather than some typical right wing Authoritarian who only cares about laws when the other side is doing the law breaking.

Thanks in advance!
 
Last edited:
Thier status as "unlawful combatants" with no right to habeus corpus and detainment without probable cause or further rights is also unlawful.
 
Thier status as "unlawful combatants" with no right to habeus corpus and detainment without probable cause or further rights is also unlawful.

To a point I agree with you. However, this war on terror, as it were, is a new concept. Generally one army fights another and you have POW's. However, as Al Qaeda and the lot have no standard uniform, terrorists of these camps pose a difficult question. Should we treat them as POW's until the War on Terror is complete, or do we treat them as international criminals? Many feel the former is accurate, but is it possible to actually get to a point when the war on terror is won? Also, these guys are part of a unit that is out to destroy Western culture. If they were acting alone it would be an easy question to answer, they are international criminals. However, as they are not, and tend to have a chain of command and central authority, they may indeed be considered POW's.
 
I say we look to our Constitution and to International law for an answer. It is understood that it's easier said than done. Thank you kindly for the clarifications though.
 
As has already been stated this is treason, plain and simple, and is the direct result of actions of the Obama administration and Obama himself. All of these issues were thoroughly evaluated by the previous administration for seven years and their resultant best legal practices put in place and working properly. Military tribunals are historically proven to be the way to treat this type of combatant for obvious reasons. One of those reasons just hit the headlines.

They covertly determined US operative identities and photographed them and provided that information to the enemy. Almost a perfect definition!
 
As has already been stated this is treason, plain and simple, and is the direct result of actions of the Obama administration and Obama himself. All of these issues were thoroughly evaluated by the previous administration for seven years and their resultant best legal practices put in place and working properly. Military tribunals are historically proven to be the way to treat this type of combatant for obvious reasons. One of those reasons just hit the headlines.

They covertly determined US operative identities and photographed them and provided that information to the enemy. Almost a perfect definition!

Read the article. It is not even certain if a law has been broken. Over the top rhetoric is silly and counterproductive.
 
Are they, by any chance, retarded?
 
Thier status as "unlawful combatants" with no right to habeus corpus and detainment without probable cause or further rights is also unlawful.

Unlawful? How so?
 
Read the article. It is not even certain if a law has been broken. Over the top rhetoric is silly and counterproductive.

I reread it. Still have the same opinion only now I see how one sided and embarassed the article was. Ohhh, the bad CIA and the courageous ACLU. 180 degrees from the truth. It's not entirely the fault of the reporter. As you well know, responsible officials are not permitted to make any comment regarding a classified matter. This report is simply spin from the executive branch.
 
As has already been stated this is treason, plain and simple, and is the direct result of actions of the Obama administration and Obama himself. All of these issues were thoroughly evaluated by the previous administration for seven years and their resultant best legal practices put in place and working properly. Military tribunals are historically proven to be the way to treat this type of combatant for obvious reasons. One of those reasons just hit the headlines.

They covertly determined US operative identities and photographed them and provided that information to the enemy. Almost a perfect definition!

Best legal practices! That's funny. The Supreme Court effectivley but the kabash on these illegal show trials...

Do you know anything about the Law or Constitution?
 
Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention

Show me the exact text to which you're referring.

Also, I noticed you omitted any Constitutionally-based argument; wise choice.
 
I reread it. Still have the same opinion only now I see how one sided and embarassed the article was. Ohhh, the bad CIA and the courageous ACLU. 180 degrees from the truth. It's not entirely the fault of the reporter. As you well know, responsible officials are not permitted to make any comment regarding a classified matter. This report is simply spin from the executive branch.

I certainly did not see the bias you claim to see, but that may just be both of us coming from different sides. I still think it is, at the very least, premature to call people criminals when they have yet to so much as be charged, and no one has actually specified which laws may be broken. If laws have been broken, then I won't have any problem with them being tried and convicted and sentenced severely.
 
Well, I think we need to take a little step back.

The Washington Post could not determine how many and which CIA personnel were photographed, which photographs were shown to detainees, or when.

So here's what we know to be fact: Nothing.
 
Well, I think we need to take a little step back.



So here's what we know to be fact: Nothing.

Well, all that information is classified, so...
 
I say we look to our Constitution and to International law for an answer. It is understood that it's easier said than done. Thank you kindly for the clarifications though.

Sure, just look at The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (Pub.L. 97-200, 50 U.S.C. § 421–426) and you'll see that this clearly a violation of the law.
 
Well, all that information is classified, so...


Well yes. So it's a little hard to defend the ACLU or condemn them. No one has any clue what actually happened. I think we're a bit quick to judge based on absolutely no credible information. I'm not saying anyone did or did not do anything, but based on this article you sure as hell cannot reach any conclusions.
 
Back
Top Bottom