PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues CIA Will Cover Legal Fees, Policy Will Help Officers Ensnared in Interrogation Probe


jAZ
08-28-2009, 02:42 AM
Kudos to Panetta.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/27/AR2009082704071.html

CIA Will Cover Legal Fees
Policy Will Help Officers Ensnared in Interrogation Probe

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 28, 2009

CIA Director Leon Panetta decided Thursday that the agency will ensure legal representation for case officers who become caught up in investigations of alleged interrogation abuses of detainees at overseas locations, a senior intelligence official said.

Panetta's decision follows Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s appointment of a special prosecutor earlier this week to conduct a preliminary review of whether federal laws were violated during the interrogations. When working on controversial assignments, many CIA officers take out personal liability insurance, which sometimes reimburses legal fees if they face lawsuits or criminal charges, but others do not.

"Panetta will do everything he can to ensure that anyone who needs legal representation has it, whether they have liability insurance or not," said the senior intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak before the decision is publicly announced. "It's a question of fairness. People who did tough jobs for the country won't be left by the side of the road."

The new federal inquiry will be conducted by Assistant U.S. Attorney John H. Durham, who since 2008 has been investigating the destruction of CIA videotapes of detainees undergoing waterboarding.

In that investigation, Durham has asked agency contractors to give testimony before a grand jury in Alexandria next month, according to three sources familiar with the matter. It is not clear that the witnesses will testify.


Officials said the number of CIA employees seeking legal representation could grow larger than the relatively small number of people directly engaged in contact with detainees as Durham gathers information, interviews agency employees and takes testimony in his expanded inquiry.

Several CIA officials already have private lawyers being paid by insurance companies, and others are having fees covered directly by the agency. At least one officer has a lawyer working without charge, according to individuals familiar with the situation.

One insurance firm specializing in federal employee professional liability insurance, Wright & Co., charges $292 annually for coverage and pays up to $200,000 "in defense costs for federal government initiated administrative proceedings and investigations," according to its Web site. But experts said legal fees could run far higher than that for lengthy cases.

"Most CIA officers don't have much money and could go into debt to hire a good lawyer," said a lawyer who has represented an agency official in the past and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he may be involved in future investigations.

President Obama in April told senior CIA officials that the administration would not prosecute or investigate agency personnel in the wake of disclosure of Justice Department memos that first outlined harsh interrogation techniques.

In announcing Durham's inquiry on Monday, Holder said CIA officers "need to be protected from legal jeopardy when they act in good faith and within the scope of legal guidance."

Staff writer Carrie Johnson contributed to this report.

patteeu
08-28-2009, 07:04 AM
Good for Panetta, but it's way less than enough to make up for this administration's mistreatment of these men in their political game.

dirk digler
08-28-2009, 07:26 AM
That's crap. So when I break the law the government is going to provide me with a gold plated lawyer instead of some overworked not very bright public defender?

BigRedChief
08-28-2009, 07:36 AM
Good for Panetta, but it's way less than enough to make up for this administration's mistreatment of these men in their political game.
As you know I'm against this investigation of torture by the Bush administration. My understanding is that this Holder investigation is only going to investigate those individuals that went beyond what the Bush administration authorized, isn't that correct? Not whether the Bush torture rules were legal or not. They are operating on the assumtion that they were legal and inverstigating those who went beyond that legal guidenance from George W.

I don't see Obama as behind this. He can't win on this issue. It's only going to hurt him. He has said publically many times he's not in favor of a torture investigation. The attorney general is suppose to be autonomus from the Executive branch. Maybe Holder is just trying to make a statement that he is not the lapdog of the President like those who served under George W.?

patteeu
08-28-2009, 08:07 AM
As you know I'm against this investigation of torture by the Bush administration. My understanding is that this Holder investigation is only going to investigate those individuals that went beyond what the Bush administration authorized, isn't that correct? Not whether the Bush torture rules were legal or not. They are operating on the assumtion that they were legal and inverstigating those who went beyond that legal guidenance from George W.

I don't see Obama as behind this. He can't win on this issue. It's only going to hurt him. He has said publically many times he's not in favor of a torture investigation. The attorney general is suppose to be autonomus from the Executive branch. Maybe Holder is just trying to make a statement that he is not the lapdog of the President like those who served under George W.?

The Justice Department already investigated these events and elected not to prosecute. Holder is ordering a re-investigation, not on the basis of new evidence, but on the basis of new political perspectives. That's wrong. It's even more wrong if he's just doing it for the selfish reason of showing that he's not a lapdog, although I'm not so sure that that's the case.

BigRedChief
08-28-2009, 08:18 AM
The Justice Department already investigated these events and elected not to prosecute. Holder is ordering a re-investigation, not on the basis of new evidence, but on the basis of new political perspectives. That's wrong. It's even more wrong if he's just doing it for the selfish reason of showing that he's not a lapdog, although I'm not so sure that that's the case.
I'm not sure its the case either but its not Obama's doing. He can only lose on this issue so I just don't see a motive for him. What's his motive?

KILLER_CLOWN
08-28-2009, 08:20 AM
I'm not sure its the case either but its not Obama's doing. He can only lose on this issue so I just don't see a motive for him. What's his motive?

To protect those who torture and help out his family ie Dick Cheney, John Yoo, Donald Rumsfeld, Blackwater and all the disgusting BS that is still going on.

dirk digler
08-28-2009, 08:26 AM
I'm not sure its the case either but its not Obama's doing. He can only lose on this issue so I just don't see a motive for him. What's his motive?

It is not about win or lose it is about right vs wrong. You either believe people are above the law or you don't.

patteeu
08-28-2009, 08:30 AM
I'm not sure its the case either but its not Obama's doing. He can only lose on this issue so I just don't see a motive for him. What's his motive?

His motive would be to satisfy his far left base with red meat without having his fingerprints directly on the deed. That way some of the built up pressure from the blame-America left is allowed to dissipate without causing too much broad political damage among the more sensible segments of the public. Your position is a great example of how the deniability factor can work in Obama's favor on this issue for those who are willing to give him the benefit of any doubt.

Duck Dog
08-28-2009, 08:34 AM
Liberals, liberal politicians, this liberal administration, and our liberal media will convict and confine someone (anyone) over this fucking War on Terrorism.

BigRedChief
08-28-2009, 08:34 AM
His motive would be to satisfy his far left base with red meat without having his fingerprints directly on the deed. That way some of the built up pressure from the blame-America left is allowed to dissipate without causing too much broad political damage among the more sensible segments of the public. Your position is a great example of how the deniability factor can work in Obama's favor on this issue for those who are willing to give him the benefit of any doubt.
so he is secretly and underhandly pandering to his base on the left?

Duck Dog
08-28-2009, 08:36 AM
Further more, assholes, these men were doing their job trying keep another 4K people from being killed by Islamic terrorists.

stevieray
08-28-2009, 08:37 AM
It is not about win or lose it is about right vs wrong. You either believe people are above the law or you don't.

...like black panthers intimidating voters is ok to this admin.

patteeu
08-28-2009, 08:38 AM
It is not about win or lose it is about right vs wrong. You either believe people are above the law or you don't.

This isn't about law, it's about politics.

patteeu
08-28-2009, 08:38 AM
so he is secretly and underhandly pandering to his base on the left?

The motive is sure there.

Donger
08-28-2009, 08:40 AM
It is not about win or lose it is about right vs wrong. You either believe people are above the law or you don't.

What law?

KILLER_CLOWN
08-28-2009, 08:40 AM
The motive is sure there.

Actually it's right out in the open and it means nothing.

RINGLEADER
08-28-2009, 08:41 AM
I'm not sure its the case either but its not Obama's doing. He can only lose on this issue so I just don't see a motive for him. What's his motive?

Keep the far-left happy -- a group he needs energized for health care...

dirk digler
08-28-2009, 08:43 AM
...like black panthers intimidating voters is ok to this admin.

Prosecute them if they have broken the law I don't care about them either.

dirk digler
08-28-2009, 08:44 AM
This isn't about law, it's about politics.

If what I have read is correct alot of these people that broke the law were contractors does that make a difference to you?

dirk digler
08-28-2009, 08:52 AM
What law?

Here you go Donger

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html

Federal torture statute, 18 U.S.C
As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life. (b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if— (1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.

(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

patteeu
08-28-2009, 08:53 AM
If what I have read is correct alot of these people that broke the law were contractors does that make a difference to you?

It doesn't matter who these people were. The objectionable part of this is the re-investigation.

Donger
08-28-2009, 08:55 AM
Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if

(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or

(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.


"who become caught up in investigations of alleged interrogation abuses of detainees at overseas locations."

Can you see the light!?

KILLER_CLOWN
08-28-2009, 08:57 AM
"who become caught up in investigations of alleged interrogation abuses of detainees at overseas locations."

Can you see the light!?

Can you quote from the HW Bush 1000 points of light speech for us?

dirk digler
08-28-2009, 08:58 AM
It doesn't matter who these people were. The objectionable part of this is the re-investigation.

So you don't believe in any re-investigations or just this re-investigation?

Everyday in this country prosecutors open up old cases and re-investigate cases because they were mishandled. Happens all the time. Is there something wrong with that?

dirk digler
08-28-2009, 08:59 AM
"who become caught up in investigations of alleged interrogation abuses of detainees at overseas locations."

Can you see the light!?

Could be anywhere outside the US. As you stated Gitmo isn't US territory so there you go

Donger
08-28-2009, 09:02 AM
Could be anywhere outside the US. As you stated Gitmo isn't US territory so there you go

Take a peek at the two jurisdiction requirements again. What are they?

* Edit - Doh. Sorry, haven't had my coffee yet. I was confusing offender with "victim."

blaise
08-28-2009, 09:04 AM
It is not about win or lose it is about right vs wrong. You either believe people are above the law or you don't.

That doesn't seem to end up being too much concern for most Presidents when they pardon all their buddies on the way out of office.
Not that Obama's done that yet, but like everyone before him, he probably will.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-28-2009, 09:07 AM
UN Rights Chief Says Torture Probe Must Go To The Top . . . Paging Mr. Cheney

Washington’s Blog
Friday, August 28, 2009

The head of the U.N.’s human rights arm is demanding that the torture investigation go to the very top:

The U.S. prosecutor’s investigation into alleged criminal CIA interrogation techniques must go right to the top political level, the chief U.N. rights official said on Thursday.

U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, 67, in a wide-ranging interview with Reuters, urged European and other countries to resettle Guantanamo detainees so that President Barack Obama can close the U.S.-run prison in Cuba by year-end…

The former United Nations war crimes judge [said] “Whenever people come under the jurisdiction of the United States, the United States has to be seen to be upholding the very high standards that they claim for their own citizens” …

Any torture or death inflicted on suspects held by U.S. authorities in places including Bagram detention centre in Afghanistan should be part of this investigation, she said.

Asked whether it should go beyond establishing the criminal liability of CIA interrogators, Pillay replied: “That is international law on accountability — that you do not stop at the foot soldiers, you go right up to the ultimate authority that is legally responsible.”

And these would include those who devised the policy, those who ordered it,” said Pillay, a Tamil from South Africa.

Former U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney, a vocal defender of the Bush administration’s security policies, has said intelligence obtained from harsh interrogation techniques had saved lives.

Of course, it has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt that torture did not save lives. See this, this, and this.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LR218160.htm

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/04/top-interrogation-experts-say-torture.html

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/05/executive-summary-what-do-experts-say.html

http://washingtonindependent.com/56344/cia-documents-provide-little-cover-for-cheney-claims

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/08/un-rights-chief-torture-probe-must-go.html

blaise
08-28-2009, 09:07 AM
That's crap. So when I break the law the government is going to provide me with a gold plated lawyer instead of some overworked not very bright public defender?

I think a lot of public defenders are pretty bright. Some of them go into it because they believe in what they're doing, when they could probably make more money working for a private firm.
Actually, I'm a little surprised the CIA doesn't have some sort of staff attorney system.

blaise
08-28-2009, 09:08 AM
UN Rights Chief Says Torture Probe Must Go To The Top . . . Paging Mr. Cheney

Washington’s Blog
Friday, August 28, 2009

The head of the U.N.’s human rights arm is demanding that the torture investigation go to the very top:

The U.S. prosecutor’s investigation into alleged criminal CIA interrogation techniques must go right to the top political level, the chief U.N. rights official said on Thursday.

U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, 67, in a wide-ranging interview with Reuters, urged European and other countries to resettle Guantanamo detainees so that President Barack Obama can close the U.S.-run prison in Cuba by year-end…

The former United Nations war crimes judge [said] “Whenever people come under the jurisdiction of the United States, the United States has to be seen to be upholding the very high standards that they claim for their own citizens” …

Any torture or death inflicted on suspects held by U.S. authorities in places including Bagram detention centre in Afghanistan should be part of this investigation, she said.

Asked whether it should go beyond establishing the criminal liability of CIA interrogators, Pillay replied: “That is international law on accountability — that you do not stop at the foot soldiers, you go right up to the ultimate authority that is legally responsible.”

And these would include those who devised the policy, those who ordered it,” said Pillay, a Tamil from South Africa.

Former U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney, a vocal defender of the Bush administration’s security policies, has said intelligence obtained from harsh interrogation techniques had saved lives.

Of course, it has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt that torture did not save lives. See this, this, and this.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LR218160.htm

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/04/top-interrogation-experts-say-torture.html

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/05/executive-summary-what-do-experts-say.html

http://washingtonindependent.com/56344/cia-documents-provide-little-cover-for-cheney-claims

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/08/un-rights-chief-torture-probe-must-go.html


No offense to the U.N. or anything, but they can go to hell.

dirk digler
08-28-2009, 09:11 AM
That doesn't seem to end up being too much concern for most Presidents when they pardon all their buddies on the way out of office.
Not that Obama's done that yet, but like everyone before him, he probably will.

True and that is one thing I give Bush credit for he didn't do that. He even resisted pardoning Libby even though Darth Cheney was upset and started crying like a bitch

KILLER_CLOWN
08-28-2009, 09:11 AM
No offense to the U.N. or anything, but they can go to hell.

I understand and agree for the most part, i only posted to show that we have always been the standard for justice not just some rogue totalitarian nation that tortures for results.

patteeu
08-28-2009, 09:35 AM
So you don't believe in any re-investigations or just this re-investigation?

Everyday in this country prosecutors open up old cases and re-investigate cases because they were mishandled. Happens all the time. Is there something wrong with that?

I don't believe in one administration coming in and re-evaluating the prior administration's Justice work through a different political prism. If significant new evidence had come to light that justified a re-opening, that would be a different story, but re-opening to fish for that evidence, particularly when it involves such a contentious political issue, is bad for our country, IMO.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-28-2009, 09:37 AM
I don't believe in one administration coming in and re-evaluating the prior administration's Justice work through a different political prism. If significant new evidence had come to light that justified a re-opening, that would be a different story, but re-opening to fish for that evidence, particularly when it involves such a contentious political issue, is bad for our country, IMO.

Obama promised to do that but don't worry Nothing will come of it this is merely a distraction anyways while the looting of our nation continues.

Donger
08-28-2009, 09:40 AM
I wonder if Obama is going fire Holder?

blaise
08-28-2009, 09:46 AM
As you know I'm against this investigation of torture by the Bush administration. My understanding is that this Holder investigation is only going to investigate those individuals that went beyond what the Bush administration authorized, isn't that correct? Not whether the Bush torture rules were legal or not. They are operating on the assumtion that they were legal and inverstigating those who went beyond that legal guidenance from George W.

I don't see Obama as behind this. He can't win on this issue. It's only going to hurt him. He has said publically many times he's not in favor of a torture investigation. The attorney general is suppose to be autonomus from the Executive branch. Maybe Holder is just trying to make a statement that he is not the lapdog of the President like those who served under George W.?

Maybe, but I actually think it's more Obama wanting to have his cake and eat it too. This way he can play it that this is Holder’s deal, but still be able to take some credit for it. The people that want the investigation will be happy because it’s going forward, the people opposed to this will be sold that Obama isn’t really behind it.
Then when Obama campaigns or has a State of the Union he can say, in effect, “Eric Holder is doing the best he can to find the truth and make sure justice is served. This is a DOJ affair. We’re optimistic that we can take care of this and then put unpleasant chapter behind us.” That way it can go forward, but he still gets to act like a reluctant participant. Obama could have told Holder to stop this at any time if he wanted. One phone call- done.

dirk digler
08-28-2009, 09:48 AM
I don't believe in one administration coming in and re-evaluating the prior administration's Justice work through a different political prism. If significant new evidence had come to light that justified a re-opening, that would be a different story, but re-opening to fish for that evidence, particularly when it involves such a contentious political issue, is bad for our country, IMO.

Ok that is fair. But the one thing we don't know is if there was significant new evidence because the OPR makes all these reports secret plus you don't want to tip your hand when you are investigating people. I say everybody take a deep breath and let the independent prosecutor look at these and see what he finds.

Donger
08-28-2009, 09:50 AM
Heh.

Holder argued in 2002 that detainees in the "war on terror" are not technically entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions. In an interview with CNN, Holder said the detainees should still be treated "in a very humane way and almost consistent with all of the dictates of the Geneva Convention."

wild1
08-28-2009, 10:01 AM
Nothing will happen to these people. It's all just a show to distract from the administration's foundering on every issue that really matters. But in the end they don't want to alienate the CIA too much, so they'll make a big production and no one will really get anything, in my opinion.