• 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!

7 ex CIA Chiefs Ask Obama to Drop AG's Probe

The Prof

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,828
Reaction score
1,808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
7 ex-CIA chiefs ask Obama to stop attorney general's probe of Bush-era harsh interrogations | StarTribune.com

Seven former CIA directors asked President Barack Obama on Friday to quash a criminal probe of harsh interrogations of terror suspects during the Bush administration.

The CIA directors, who served both Democratic and Republican presidents and include three who worked under President George W. Bush, made their request in a letter Friday to the White House.

The incidents were referred by the CIA inspector general to the Justice Department during the Bush administration, but Justice officials at the time prosecuted only one case.

"If criminal investigations closed by career prosecutors during one administration can so easily be reopened at the direction of political appointees in the next, declinations of prosecution will be rendered meaningless," wrote the former directors.

The seven former CIA directors included Michael Hayden, Porter Goss and George Tenet, who served under Bush; John Deutch and James Woolsey, who worked for President Bill Clinton; William Webster, who served under President George H.W. Bush; and James Schlesinger, who ran the agency under President Richard Nixon. Tenet also served under Clinton.

They urged Obama to reverse Holder's Aug. 24 decision to reopen the investigation of interrogations following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

1. What living ex-CIA boss did NOT sign on?

2. The opinion expressed by Hayden, Goss, Tenet, Deutch, Woolsey, Webster and Schlesinger (who served both Bushes, Clinton and Nixon) appears to be consensus.

3. Obama's siccing of Holder on the CIA is seen as the crassest of low-class politics.

4. And, as such, it's a (political) loser---when's the last time you heard the president or any of his people mention the prosecution?

5. Why does no one even know the prosecutor's name?

6. Since these interrogations have already been looked into in tedious detail, doing it all in redux is a demonstration of double jeopardy.

7. And don't forget---this harsher treatment of hairy backed Khalid Sheikh Mohammad flipped the 9-11 mastermind from guru of gore into apt teacher of terrorist tutorials.

8. The 7 ex spymasters are 100% correct---agents cannot function ably in their duties in the present when they worry that the rules under which they operate can be re-written in retrospect and recriminated tomorrow by some future administration for political purposes.

9. They also worry that foreign governments will be reluctant to cooperate with US intelligence ongoing if the probe continues.

10. "As a result of the zeal on the part of some to uncover every action taken in the post-9/11 period, many countries may decide that they can no longer safely share intelligence or cooperate with us on future counter-terrorist operations. They simply cannot rely on our promises of secrecy," the letter says.

11. Investigators into these incidents in the past have passed on prosecuting because the chances of winning a conviction are non existent.

12. Occurrences in question happened so long ago and half a planet away, memories are sure to be "uncooperative."

13. The acts being looked to, fundamentally, are absurd---threats never carried thru, power drills never plugged in, second hand cigarette smoke fumed into murderers' mugs...

14. But mostly---to get a guilty verdict, the anonymous prosecutor must prove INTENT.

15. The EIT's, in addition, were specifically ok'd by Langley's leaders, whom Ms Pelosi preposterously reproached as prevaricators.

16. Current director Panetta did not personally rubber stamp the correspondence, but his profanity-packed proclivities are public knowledge, presently.

17. Obama's impetus for reversing himself and going back on his pledge NOT to politicize the valiant efforts of our successful CIA was his attempt to placate the progressives in his party, discomposed as they were by his dumping of their precious public option.

18. And yet, even at that, the chief exec acted characteristically cowardly and compromising, looking only to the lowest levels of Langley to lash out at while letting the leaders waltz.

19. Why aren't the White House and its diminshing base making hay of this issue, and why, on the other hand, ARE his critics?

20. Quick, without googling, NAME the prosecutor.


The Prof
 
Last edited:
It's time for common sense to override politics.
 
If no U.S. laws were broken or treaties violated the probe will exonerate them. If not, they broke the law & should be penalized.
I'm as patriotic as the next guy but don't buy into "My Country Right Or Wrong."
We are Americans .....& that should stand for something.
 
Last edited:
If no U.S. laws were broken or treaties violated the probe will exonerate them. If not, they broke the law & should be penalized.
I'm as patriotic as the next guy but don't buy into "My Country Right Or Wrong."

They broke the law? They were ordered by the Freaking President commander and chief to do what they did, and while Dick and George play golf, these heros are going to be put on show trails **** that ****. If Obama has balls let him go after the people who ordered the actions. I mean its nice to hang some scape goats out to dry, but it certainly isnt justice.
 
They broke the law? They were ordered by the Freaking President commander and chief to do what they did, and while Dick and George play golf, these heros are going to be put on show trails **** that ****. If Obama has balls let him go after the people who ordered the actions. I mean its nice to hang some scape goats out to dry, but it certainly isnt justice.

I started that post with a big "IF" & if they were ordered to the order givers will be punished too. No more blaming everything on Lindie English anymore.
If crimes were committed, let AG Holder follow them.......wherever they lead.
Obama just has to step out of the way.



If Obama has balls let him go after the people who ordered the actions. I mean its nice to hang some scape goats out to dry, but it certainly isnt justice.

100% Agreed!
 
Last edited:
If no U.S. laws were broken or treaties violated the probe will exonerate them. If not, they broke the law & should be penalized.
I'm as patriotic as the next guy but don't buy into "My Country Right Or Wrong."
We are Americans .....& that should stand for something.

The point is that their actions were already investigated by the USAO, which declined to prosecute all but one. Using a different division of the DoJ to reopen the investigations years after these people were cleared raises several problems.
 
I started that post with a big "IF" & if they were ordered to the order givers will be punished too. No more blaming everything on Lindie English anymore.
If crimes were committed, let AG Holder follow them..wherever they lead.
Obama just has to step out of the way.

The point is he will never follow were they lead, because the orders came from the top. Unless Obama wants to start a new and dangerous precedent no one in the old administration will be touched. What will happen is that covers will be blown, agents put through the media maginifying lens, and the moral destroyed in the agency, people who are the most important line of defence we have in the United states.
 
The point is that their actions were already investigated by the USAO, which declined to prosecute all but one. Using a different division of the DoJ to reopen the investigations years after these people were cleared raises several problems.

Whatever "Investigation" that were done in the past were tainted by politics & cannot be trusted. Let a new ..non-partisan...special prosecutor run a REAL investigation this time. (I would even accept an honest guy like Brent Scocroft (sp)...Bush Sr.s guy)
 
Last edited:
The point is he will never follow were they lead, because the orders came from the top.
We all know they came from the top, but some investigations do go all the way......Like Watergate....forced a sitting President to resign.

Unless Obama wants to start a new and dangerous precedent no one in the old administration will be touched.
I disagree. I think the real danger would be to overlook crimes that were committed so the next president will feel invulnerable like Bush did.
No one is above the law & Presidents are not Kings.

What will happen is that covers will be blown, agents put through the media maginifying lens, and the moral destroyed in the agency, people who are the most important line of defence we have in the United states.

Already happened under Bush....Valerie Plame was outed. We survived that too.
 
Last edited:
I think Obama is going about this wrong, he should firstly prosecute the men who gave the orders for the torture to be carried out, then he should set up a Truth and Reconcilliation commision for those who were just following orders. For those who don't know what a Truth and Reconcilliation commision is, look into what happened in South Africa after the Aparthied ended. They brought justice the right way. Obama should follow their example.
 
I think Obama is going about this wrong, he should firstly prosecute the men who gave the orders for the torture to be carried out, then he should set up a Truth and Reconcilliation commision for those who were just following orders. For those who don't know what a Truth and Reconcilliation commision is, look into what happened in South Africa after the Aparthied ended. They brought justice the right way. Obama should follow their example.

I think that's an excellent idea!!:applaud
 
We all know they came from the top, but some investigations do go all the way......Like Watergate....forced a sitting President to resign.

That is different as he was an active President and the pressure came from the Congress (Impeachement).

I disagree. I think the real danger would be to overlook crimes that were committed so the next president will feel invulnerable like Bush did.
No one is above the law & Presidents are not Kings.

I agree, but it is the Congress responsibility to do so while he was President. but in reality the congres knew full well what was going on and shut their mouths and eyes and ears. I mean if Obama wants to go to the heart of the matter he needs to include the Speaker of the House into this investigation.

Already happened under Bush....Valerie Plame was outed. We survived that too.


That was bad, but that was one agent. Imagine this happening to dozens to entire departments.
 
I disagree...sometimes doing the right thing is the most difficult. To not investigate and prosecute the people who ordered laws to be broken would only set the standard for the next rouge President who wants to twart the law of the land and embolden them with the knowledge of just how much they could get away with and the nation would still not have the guts to prosecute them and the people involved.

Proper investigations, convictions and sentences would be the right thing for our country's future health and would send a message to future Presidents and Vice Presidents who feel they are above the law that infact they are not and it will not be tolerated.

The CIA is going to just have to weather the storm.
 
Whatever "Investigation" that were done in the past were tainted by politics & cannot be trusted. Let a new ..non-partisan...special prosecutor run a REAL investigation this time. (I would even accept an honest guy like Brent Scocroft (sp)...Bush Sr.s guy)

The general consensus from observers on both sides is that this is completely false. The AUSA's who conducted the investigation were from the ED of VA, which has the nation's most extensive experience with cases of this type and has a sterling reputation for integrity.

We all know they came from the top, but some investigations do go all the way......Like Watergate....forced a sitting President to resign.

I disagree. I think the real danger would be to overlook crimes that were committed so the next president will feel invulnerable like Bush did.
No one is above the law & Presidents are not Kings.

Already happened under Bush....Valerie Plame was outed. We survived that too.

I disagree...sometimes doing the right thing is the most difficult. To not investigate and prosecute the people who ordered laws to be broken would only set the standard for the next rouge President who wants to twart the law of the land and embolden them with the knowledge of just how much they could get away with and the nation would still not have the guts to prosecute them and the people involved.

Like most, you're completely misunderstanding the scope of this investigation. This investigation is not looking at the legality of any of the actions taken pursuant to orders from above, but is exclusively focused on actions that exceeded those orders.
 
Whatever "Investigation" that were done in the past were tainted by politics & cannot be trusted. Let a new ..non-partisan...special prosecutor run a REAL investigation this time. (I would even accept an honest guy like Brent Scocroft (sp)...Bush Sr.s guy)


This investigation isn't going to be tainted by politics?
 
That is different as he was an active President and the pressure came from the Congress (Impeachement).
Just because Congress didn't have the guts to do its job & impeach both Bush & Cheney (even though Rep. Dennis Kucinish had formally filed such bills on the House floor) doesn't mean that they (Bush & Cheney) should not now be investigated, prosecuted & incarcerated for any crimes they may have committed while their regime was in office.



I agree, but it is the Congress responsibility to do so while he was President. but in reality the congres knew full well what was going on and shut their mouths and eyes and ears. I mean if Obama wants to go to the heart of the matter he needs to include the Speaker of the House into this investigation.

You are right in that.. due to Congress's (I blame Pelosi mostly) lack of guts to impeach, they were derelict in their duties & missed the opportunity to impeach for strictly partisan political reasons. I would love to see Pelosi stripped of her Speaker position due to her cowardice!

BUT...That in no way excuses Bush & Cheney from now being held responsible for actual crimes (against the United States) they may have comitted while in office.
 
Last edited:
The general consensus from observers on both sides is that this is completely false. The AUSA's who conducted the investigation were from the ED of VA, which has the nation's most extensive experience with cases of this type and has a sterling reputation for integrity.
Those AUSA's were still working for Bush. What you are saying is that if Al Capone had been in charge of finding bootlegging problems in 1920's Chicago... & of course found nothing....that we should accept that investigation as a real one??:lol:

Any investigation that Bush did of his own administration was a joke & we all know it.
Those AUSA's were under extreme pressure to not find anything wrong or they would have been fired, plain & simple (Just like the 7 U.S. Attys who WERE fired for political reasons)





Like most, you're completely misunderstanding the scope of this investigation. This investigation is not looking at the legality of any of the actions taken pursuant to orders from above, but is exclusively focused on actions that exceeded those orders.
My remarks are not limited to this particular investigation. I would like to see a special prosecutor assigned to investigate ANY crimes committed by by the Bush regime. Why should some actual crimes be deliberately excused? (If a cop is investigating someone for bank robbery & finds dead bodies all over the guys living room, the crime of murder would not be overlooked/excused either. (As long as the cop is legally allowed to search (warrant) ......evidence of ANY crime he finds is admissible in court )
 
Last edited:
If no U.S. laws were broken or treaties violated the probe will exonerate them. If not, they broke the law & should be penalized.
I'm as patriotic as the next guy but don't buy into "My Country Right Or Wrong."
We are Americans .....& that should stand for something.
American stands for petty politics and hypocracy on the left.
 
Just because Congress didn't have the guts to do its job & impeach both Bush & Cheney (even though Rep. Dennis Kucinish had formally filed such bills on the House floor) doesn't mean that they (Bush & Cheney) should not now be investigated, prosecuted & incarcerated for any crimes they may have committed while their regime was in office.





You are right in that.. due to Congress's (I blame Pelosi mostly) lack of guts to impeach, they were derelict in their duties & for strictly partisan political reasons. I would love to see Pelosi stripped of her Speaker position due to her cowardice!

BUT...That in no way excuses Bush & Cheney from now being held responsible for actual crimes (against the United States) they may have comitted while in office.
Kucinich is a fringe ****tard who had nothing.
 
Last edited:
This investigation isn't going to be tainted by politics?

Let them assign respected Repubs to the investigation too, so there is no partisan taint to it. There are plenty of honest Repubs I would trust to do this.
 
Back
Top Bottom