• 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!

Ex-Intelligence Officials Cite Low Spirits at CIA

The Prof

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,828
Reaction score
1,808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
From the Washington Post, Sunday, written by Walter Pincus and Joby Warrick

1. Morale at Langley is shot, due to Obama/Holder's double-dealing politicization of CIA methods, according to many senior CIA insiders

2. Meanwhile, the inspector general, Helgerson, who previously reviewed all this stuff about power drills, faked executions and empty threats (LOL!), and found nothing indictable says now that going forward is LIKELY TO GO NOWHERE

3. The previous Justice Dept ok'd in letter the procedures employed by those now facing prosecution, Helgerson explains

4. CIA higher ups specifically approved the tactics used by the lower level lackeys about to be put thru the wringer, supposedly, by Holder/Obama

5. I say "supposedly" because this particular prosecution is such a political loser, it won't move an inch

6. Still, the little guys being leveraged will have to lawyer up against Holder's hassling

7. Most importantly, to get even an indictment, Helgerson says, the no-name prosecutor picked by the president must prove INTENT, a practical impossibility

8. Veteran voices within the CIA assert that agents will not take risks, ongoing, thus weakening US security

9. They fear that methods considered kosher today will be reversed by LATER administration's for POLITICAL purposes

10. Many high level agents, some in management, have been making phone calls "seeking advice about new employment," reports The Washington Post

11. While The Post recognizes that a comprehensive sampling of the thousands of agency employees is impossible, among the dozens involved in the programs in question, "feelings run high" concerning the poor treatment meted to lifetime servicemembers by this cheaply expedient president

12. The White House was warned back in December that its political playing of CIA careerists was gonna backfire badly

13. But obtuse Obama obliviously believed the brouhaha would be a two day story

14. LOLOL!

15. Other top level informants told The Post they resent the administration's "double standard"

16. That is, juicy details that might prove obstacles to Obama's present efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan have been withheld, they say, while those intended to embarrass the previous president have been gossiped to the world

17. Helgerson points to the case of the agent who pointed a gun at a detainee and threatened him with a power drill

18. The agent in question was subject to immediate disciplinary action

19. The documents RELEASED BY HOLDER indicate that valuable information was extracted thru interrogation

20. They refuse to conclude, however, either one way or the other, that attacks were or weren't staved off, nor whether the info gleaned was or wasn't the result of EIT's

washingtonpost.com

By Walter Pincus and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, August 30, 2009

Morale has sagged at the CIA following the release of additional portions of an inspector general's review of the agency's interrogation program and the announcement that the Justice Department would investigate possible abuses by interrogators, according to former intelligence officials, especially those associated with the program.

A. B. "Buzzy" Krongard, the third-ranking CIA official at the time of the use of harsh interrogation practices, said that although vigorous oversight is crucial, the public airing of once-classified internal assessments and the prospect of further investigation are damaging the agency. "Morale at the agency is down to minus 50," he said.

At the same time, former inspector general John L. Helgerson, whose review of the program was largely declassified Monday, said that the release, though painful, would ensure that the agency confronts difficult issues head on, instead of ignoring or trying to bury them.

Helgerson also said it would be "very difficult" to mount a successful prosecution of any of the individuals who participated in the program. The Bush-era Justice Department "approved the program orally and in writing; the agency's chain of command was involved. There would be no jury appeal, and I do not believe there was any criminal intent among those involved," Helgerson said.

Krongard, one of the few active or retired CIA officers with direct knowledge of the program willing to voice publicly what many officers are saying privately, said agency personnel now may back away from controversial programs that could place them in personal legal jeopardy should their work be exposed. "The old saying goes, 'Big operation, big risk; small operation, small risk; no operation, no risk.' "

"If you're not in the intelligence business to be forward-leaning, you might as well not be in it," Krongard said.

A retired former senior CIA official said that since the announcement that the Justice Department would investigate the agency's interrogation tactics, he has received many calls from serving intelligence officers, some in high management positions, seeking advice about new jobs or lawyers. "This is a bad one," he said.

It is impossible to extrapolate from the small sample contacted by Washington Post reporters about the effect the varied inquiries are having on the thousands of agency employees, more than one-third of whom are spread around the world. But among the dozens of officials who were part of the program and either remain active or have retired, feelings run high about how the White House and the Justice Department have handled the issue.

One former senior official said President Obama was warned in December that release of the Justice Department memos sanctioning harsh interrogation methods would create an uproar that could not be contained. "They [the White House] thought that it would be a two-day story; they were wrong," this official said.

A much-discussed question is whether the legal reassurances of one administration carry over to its successor. "When a previous administration says something was legal, and the next says it doesn't matter, the result is hesitancy to take on cutting-edge missions," the former senior official warned.

Another former top official said senior managers detect a double standard. He pointed out that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. supported Obama's decision not to release photos of military abuses of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq because they would harm military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. "The warning that CIA operations would be made more difficult were disregarded," former official said.

Helgerson's review showed that CIA officials involved in the program anticipated the possibility of disclosure and investigation. "A number of agency officers of various grade levels . . . involved with detention and interrogation activities are concerned that they may at some future date be vulnerable to legal action . . . and that the U.S. government will not stand behind them," the 2004 report reads.

One former official cited the case of an officer who threatened a nude and hooded al-Qaeda member, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, by holding a gun to his head and later a hand drill.

"A security officer reported the gun to head that day," he said. The next day, that officer was flown back home and action was taken, he added.

The two documents indicated that the CIA gained valuable information from interrogating senior al-Qaeda suspects, though there was no firm evidence that imminent attacks were halted, or that waterboarding and other harsh techniques were decisive. The CIA declined comment on the report, but an intelligence official familiar with the incident said the agency did not withhold information favorable to Cheney's viewpoint.


The Prof
 
Last edited:
Re: Low Spirits at CIA

Boo hoo! How terrible!

There is a small chance the US might uphold the law!

How unfair of them to do that to "Patriots" who tortured other human beings in the name of Freedom!
 
Last edited:
Re: Low Spirits at CIA

There is a small chance the US might uphold the law!

if you're referring even to an indictment of even the lowest levels at langley, there's NO chance

sorry

boo hoo, i guess

LOL!
 
Re: Low Spirits at CIA

What do you expect from democrats?

They have always made playing politics a higher priority than the well being of the country. After 8 years of the democrats putting their quest for political power first, by falsely claiming the president lied about intelligence to invade Iraq, comparing out troops to those of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, publicly revealing national security secrets on how the war on terrorism was being conducted, and publicly embarrassing the US by questioning our motives in the war in Iraq at every turn, did you really think that them gaining that political power they sold America out for, was going to change who they were?

Liberals will always be liberals, and that means playing politics will always trump everything else.

.
 
Re: Low Spirits at CIA

Look no further than this rancid thread of why the GOP finds itself out of power.

Authoritarians have taken over. No respect for the Rule of Law.

They gleefully cheer when our elected elites flaunt our Nations laws.

Here is what one our Founding Fathers had to say about the law and punishment.


Thomas Paine

An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

[Via Glenn Greenwald] Can that be any clearer? Of course, Paine also wrote in Common Sense that "so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king" and "in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other." And in his Dissertations, he also wrote:

The executive is not invested with the power of deliberating whether it shall act or not; it has no discretionary authority in the case; for it can act no other thing than what the laws decree, and it is obliged to act conformably thereto. . . .
 
Last edited:
Re: Low Spirits at CIA

Law?

You mean how the DOJ already investigated this issue?

That was law... While this is nothing but playing politics by the Obama Administration.

Which by the way, I hope they continue to do, because it will be the quickest way for the democrats to get bounced right the hell out of power again. If you don't believe me, take a gander at the latest approval ratings.

.
 
Re: Low Spirits at CIA

Boo hoo! How terrible!

There is a small chance the US might uphold the law!

How unfair of them to do that to "Patriots" who tortured other human beings in the name of Freedom!

Which law has been violated? The domestic and international definitions of torture are entirely subjective as both use the subjective qualifier of "severe" so in actuality ones definition of torture is left to their own personal opinion of what qualifies as severe. I don't consider things; such as, waterboarding as severe. There needs to be a set standard of what exactly is and is not permitted as interrogation techniques and until that happens no law could have been violated and seeing as we in the U.S. have a constitutional prohibition of ex post facto prosecution these officers can not be prosecuted for the alleged mistreatment of detainees.
 
Re: Low Spirits at CIA

Look no further than this rancid thread of why the GOP finds itself out of power.

Authoritarians have taken over. No respect for the Rule of Law.

Yes Obama is an authoritarian, or rather a populist demigod who relies on a cult of personality in the mold of Hitler, Stalin, or Kim jon Il, however, which law are you talking about exactly?
 
Re: Low Spirits at CIA

Funny how there is low spirits now and not when the Bush administration outed a CIA agent for political reasons..
 
Re: Low Spirits at CIA

Stop crying like a baby detached from the boob.

You are the CIA, you were trained to be betrayed!

This is what you do!!!!!
 
Re: Low Spirits at CIA

I would imagine that there spirits started too be fairly low about the time Bush and Cheney decided to out their covert agents for political gain.

Now the CIA is being used as fall guys to cover Bush and Cheney's lying asses along with our troops.
 
Re: Low Spirits at CIA

Hey Prof--

Make an effort to follow the rules, here, okay kid.

The title of the thread must match the title of the article. You can not edit the title to say what you want it to say -- leave that crap to Sean Hannity.:2wave:
 
Re: Low Spirits at CIA

Hey guess what Goldendog, Valarie wasn't covert, and a Robert Novak "outed" her.
 
Re: Low Spirits at CIA

Hey guess what Goldendog, Valarie wasn't covert, and a Robert Novak "outed" her.


Legal documents published in the course of the CIA leak grand jury investigation, United States v. Libby, and Congressional investigations, fully establish her classified employment as a COVERT officer for the CIA at the time that Novak's column was published in July 2003.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame]Valerie Plame - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Novak was a Bush/Cheney stooge...and she was covert.
 
Re: Low Spirits at CIA

The first thing a crook wants to do when they want to out a COVERT CIA AGENT for political gain is find a stooge reporter to do it for you.

Ask Karl Rove he'll tell you.
 
Re: Low Spirits at CIA

Which law has been violated? The domestic and international definitions of torture are entirely subjective as both use the subjective qualifier of "severe" so in actuality ones definition of torture is left to their own personal opinion of what qualifies as severe. I don't consider things; such as, waterboarding as severe. There needs to be a set standard of what exactly is and is not permitted as interrogation techniques and until that happens no law could have been violated and seeing as we in the U.S. have a constitutional prohibition of ex post facto prosecution these officers can not be prosecuted for the alleged mistreatment of detainees.

It's not a question whether waterboarding is torture. It is, and officials inside both Administrations have admitted it or admitted to outright torture itself. You have no idea what your are talking about. You don't want investigations because you're a typical right wing Authoritarian who has no respect for the Rule of Law.


Associated Press, April 11, 2008:

Bush administration officials from Vice President Dick Cheney on down signed off on using harsh interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists after asking the Justice Department to endorse their legality, The Associated Press has learned.

The officials also took care to insulate President Bush from a series of meetings where CIA interrogation methods, including waterboarding, which simulates drowning, were discussed and ultimately approved. . . .

The meetings were held in the White House Situation Room in the years immediately following the Sept. 11 attacks. Attending the sessions were Cheney, then-Bush aides Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Agence France-Presse, October 15, 2008:

The administration of US President George W. Bush authorized the CIA to waterboard Al-Qaeda suspects according to two secret memos issued in 2003 and 2004, The Washington Post reported Wednesday.

Soon-to-be U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, 1/15/2009:

President-elect Barack Obama's nominee for attorney general said unequivocally Thursday that waterboarding is torture . . .

Early on he was asked whether waterboarding, a technique that makes a prisoner believe he is in danger of drowning, constitutes torture and is illegal.

"If you look at the history of the use of that technique, " Holder replied, "we prosecuted our own soldiers for using it in Vietnam. . . . Waterboarding is torture."


Bush official Susan Crawford, 1/13/2009:

The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a "life-threatening condition."

"We tortured [Mohammed al-] Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution."

Current Attorney General Michael Mukasey, 1/17/2009:

"Torture is a crime," Mr. Mukasey said in an interview Friday . . . .

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (signed by the U.S. under Ronald Reagan):

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. . . .

Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.

Article 7

1. The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.

Article 15

Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.

Ronald Reagan, 5/20/1988, transmitting Treaty to the U.S. Senate:

The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

U.S. Constitution, Article VI:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Soon-to-be Attorney General Eric Holder, 1/15/2009 (repeatedly):

"No one is above the law."
 
Last edited:
Re: Low Spirits at CIA

Boo hoo! How terrible!

There is a small chance the US might uphold the law!

How unfair of them to do that to "Patriots" who tortured other human beings in the name of Freedom!

Oh yeah? How about looking into the allegations that the DOJ and State Department and National Security Agency, and the CIA are all involved in trafficking drugs in the US? No, it didn't stop in the 80s it still continues to this day. Why not look into that? It makes better sense than punishing one branch for its employees following orders from the president.
 
Re: Low Spirits at CIA

Oh yeah? How about looking into the allegations that the DOJ and State Department and National Security Agency, and the CIA are all involved in trafficking drugs in the US? No, it didn't stop in the 80s it still continues to this day. Why not look into that? It makes better sense than punishing one branch for its employees following orders from the president.

Coo coo for coco puffs......Coo coo for coco puffs.....OMG!!!!!!!!!!

The nuts we have in this forum!
 
Re: Low Spirits at CIA

Coo coo for coco puffs......Coo coo for coco puffs.....OMG!!!!!!!!!!

The nuts we have in this forum!

No nuts..just the truth. The government has been corrupt for a long time and it isn't just the CIA, that is.
 
Re: Low Spirits at CIA

John Cole sums up my attitude about it.

At some point they are going to figure out that for most of us, we don’t care if the person has a (R) or (D) behind their name when they were instituting a policy of torture. That is what is so depressing (to me, at least) about the Ari Fleischer’s and the Thiessen’s of the world. They honestly seem to think this is nothing more than a partisan witch-hunt, the same old Washington gotcha politics. It isn’t. When you torture people, you have crossed a really clear line. Innocent people are dead. Lives have been ruined. Our international reputation has been destroyed. Yes, the Bush administration will get most of the blame, but that is because they were in charge and they did this, not because of what party they happen to belong to. If Jane Harman and Nancy Pelosi knew about this and ok’d it, they are just as culpable.
 
Re: Low Spirits at CIA

What do you expect from democrats?

They have always made playing politics a higher priority than the well being of the country. After 8 years of the democrats putting their quest for political power first, by falsely claiming the president lied about intelligence to invade Iraq, comparing out troops to those of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, publicly revealing national security secrets on how the war on terrorism was being conducted, and publicly embarrassing the US by questioning our motives in the war in Iraq at every turn, did you really think that them gaining that political power they sold America out for, was going to change who they were?

Liberals will always be liberals, and that means playing politics will always trump everything else.

.
An elected Democrat has one single purpose in life, and one only. The purpose is to take money from those who have it, and give it to those that don't. Everything else in govt doesn't matter.
 
Re: Low Spirits at CIA

Funny how there is low spirits now and not when the Bush administration outed a CIA agent for political reasons..

It was because everyone at CIA knew that Plame wasn't a covert agent, so there was nothing to get upset about.
 
Re: Low Spirits at CIA

Hey Prof--

Make an effort to follow the rules, here, okay kid.

The title of the thread must match the title of the article. You can not edit the title to say what you want it to say -- leave that crap to Sean Hannity.:2wave:

thanks

keep your eye on that important stuff

meanwhile:

1. the president's appointment of the prosecutor is pure politics

2. he went back on his word to panetta

3. he went back on his word to america

4. he said in march, after releasing those juicy memos, that his campaign against the cia was over

5. why change now?

6. cuz the public option's expired

7. the appointment is a sop to the far left

8. and, even at that, it's pathhetic, he goes only after the lackeys on langley's lowest rungs, gutlessly

9. getting an indictment, let alone conviction, is impossible

10. the doj approved in writing everything done

11. cia higher ups (completely free---LOL!---from holder's harrassment) also ok'd all

12. but mostly, prosecutors like helgerson must prove INTENT, a practical impossibility

13. that's why the white house will not talk again about this investigation

14. america will never even learn the prosecutor's name

15. the only folks making hay of this will be the president's CRITICS

16. just look at holder's headlines---threats not acted upon, power drills not plugged in, second hand smoke, mock executions, fake screamers in adjacent interrogation rooms...

17. all bluff, nothing real

18. america doesn't care about khalid sheikh muhammad's tender sensibilities

19. america is focused laser like on the ECONOMY

20. politicizing national security is grossly offensive

21. especially at times like these

22. morale at langley is lacerated

23. natl security is consequently compromised

24. this is why carville and difi criticized the appointment

25. let alone panetta

26. john mccain, it's true, is broadly opposed to torture, but he's 100% on cheney's (ie, carville's, difi's and panetta's) side when it comes to this particular appointment

27. according to the docs RELEASED BY HOLDER himself, ksm was "reticent" until he was waterboarded

28. after, he conducted "tutorials"

29. cheney WANTS this investigation, with every document released his case gets stronger

30. on fox news sunday, when shown the docs holder released, his eyes lit up with recognition---these are the very details i wanted the world to see back in march

31. there's more, there's better ones, he promised, now sure to come out

32. obama's claim that holder acts independently is LOL! material

thanks for the opportunity to clarify, friend

overall, extremely LOSING POLITICS for the white house

sincerely, nothing could please cheney and folks like me more than talking in more detail about this subject

washingtonpost.com
 
Back
Top Bottom