Thu Aug 30, 2012, 03:57 PM
Freddie Stubbs (28,545 posts)
Justice Department decides not to bring charges in CIA interrogations of terrorist suspects
Source: Washington Post
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has closed an inquiry into CIA interrogations of terrorist detainees without bringing criminal charges. Thursday’s decision, in the probes of the deaths of two terrorist suspects, marks the end a wide-ranging criminal investigation by federal prosecutor John Durham into interrogation practices during the presidency of George W. Bush. In the past three years, Durham has looked into the treatment of 101 detainees in U.S. custody since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/justice-department-decides-not-to-bring-charges-in-cia-interrogations-of-terrorist-suspects/2012/08/30/0dd02c68-f2da-11e1-b74c-84ed55e0300b_story.html Attorney General Holder issued a statement: “AUSA John Durham has now completed his investigations, and the Department has decided not to initiate criminal charges in these matters. In reaching this determination, Mr. Durham considered all potentially applicable substantive criminal statutes as well as the statutes of limitations and jurisdictional provisions that govern prosecutions under those statutes. Mr. Durham and his team reviewed a tremendous volume of information pertaining to the detainees. That review included both information and matters that were not examined during the Department’s prior reviews. Based on the fully developed factual record concerning the two deaths, the Department has declined prosecution because the admissible evidence would not be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. “During the course of his preliminary review and subsequent investigations, Mr. Durham examined any possible CIA involvement with the interrogation and detention of 101 detainees who were alleged to have been in United States custody subsequent to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. He determined that a number of the detainees were never in CIA custody. Mr. Durham identified the matters to include within his review by examining various sources including the Office of Professional Responsibility’s report regarding the Office of Legal Counsel memoranda related to enhanced interrogation techniques, the 2004 CIA Inspector General’s report on enhanced interrogations, additional matters investigated by the CIA Office of Inspector General, the February 2007 International Committee of the Red Cross Report on the Treatment of Fourteen ‘High Value Detainees’ in CIA Custody, and public source information. “Mr. Durham and his team of agents and prosecutors have worked tirelessly to conduct extraordinarily thorough and complete preliminary reviews and investigations. I am grateful to his team and to him for their commitment to ensuring that the preliminary review and the subsequent investigations fully examined a broad universe of allegations from multiple sources. I continue to believe that our Nation will be better for it. “I also appreciate and respect the work of and sacrifices made by the men and women in our intelligence community on behalf of this country. They perform an incredibly important service to our nation, and they often do so under difficult and dangerous circumstances. They deserve our respect and gratitude for the work they do. I asked Mr. Durham to conduct this review based on existing information as well as new information and matters presented to me that I believed warranted a thorough examination of the detainee treatment issue. “I am confident that Mr. Durham’s thorough reviews and determination that the filing of criminal charges would not be appropriate have satisfied that need. Our inquiry was limited to a determination of whether prosecutable offenses were committed and was not intended to, and does not resolve, broader questions regarding the propriety of the examined conduct.” http://news.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/eric-holders-full-statement-on-closing-investigation-of-cia-detainee-deaths.php
|
27 replies, 3162 views
| Author | Time | Post | |
| Freddie Stubbs | Aug 2012 | OP | |
| Webster Green | Aug 2012 | #1 | |
| tularetom | Aug 2012 | #2 | |
| Ezlivin | Aug 2012 | #10 | |
| tularetom | Aug 2012 | #11 | |
| AnotherMcIntosh | Aug 2012 | #18 | |
| wordpix | Aug 2012 | #20 | |
| alp227 | Aug 2012 | #23 | |
| Freddie Stubbs | Aug 2012 | #25 | |
| Canuckistanian | Aug 2012 | #3 | |
| Vidar | Aug 2012 | #4 | |
| rachel1 | Aug 2012 | #5 | |
| FiveGoodMen | Aug 2012 | #6 | |
| zipplewrath | Aug 2012 | #7 | |
| stupidicus | Aug 2012 | #8 | |
| AtomicKitten | Aug 2012 | #9 | |
| coalition_unwilling | Aug 2012 | #12 | |
| bemildred | Aug 2012 | #13 | |
| Solly Mack | Aug 2012 | #14 | |
| byeya | Aug 2012 | #15 | |
| bvar22 | Aug 2012 | #16 | |
| Smilo | Aug 2012 | #17 | |
| AnotherMcIntosh | Aug 2012 | #19 | |
| guyton | Aug 2012 | #21 | |
| Freddie Stubbs | Sep 2012 | #27 | |
| cstanleytech | Aug 2012 | #22 | |
| blkmusclmachine | Aug 2012 | #24 | |
| panzerfaust | Sep 2012 | #26 |
Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 04:02 PM
Webster Green (13,895 posts)
1. Shocking!
![]() |
Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 04:06 PM
tularetom (17,396 posts)
2. Every time I read something about the Justice Department
|
They have decided not to charge somebody with something.
Usually bush-era war criminals, republican voter suppression perps, or Wall Street thieves. I never read that they're going to charge anybody with anything. They always seem to find a reason not to do their fucking jobs. It's actually possible that Obama could lose the election because his worthless justice department wouldn't get off their dead asses and go after the republican governors and others who are responsible for the targeted elimination of potential Democratic voters. I used to think Rahm Emanuel was the biggest mistake Obama made. I was wrong, it wasn't even close. Eric Holder by a mile. |
Response to tularetom (Reply #2)
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 05:07 PM
Ezlivin (8,016 posts)
10. But they are busting the shit out of medical marijuana shops
|
Oh, yeah. They're able to strike down with great vengeance and furious anger those clinics serving the sick.
|
Response to Ezlivin (Reply #10)
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 05:15 PM
tularetom (17,396 posts)
11. Yep, pick on those who can't or won't fight back
|
Very disappointing this justice(?) department.
|
Response to tularetom (Reply #2)
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 06:43 PM
AnotherMcIntosh (7,543 posts)
18. Well said. Too bad we can't rec posts.
Response to tularetom (Reply #2)
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 07:01 PM
wordpix (12,478 posts)
20. Jonathan Turley says Holder is more a politician than a great legal brain & prosecutor
|
(paraphrased). Maybe that's why
|
Response to tularetom (Reply #2)
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 10:17 PM
alp227 (20,448 posts)
23. USDOJ's real name = USDNFJ
|
US Does Nothing For Justice.
|
Response to tularetom (Reply #2)
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 07:18 AM
Freddie Stubbs (28,545 posts)
25. You apperently need to do some more reading
It's actually possible that Obama could lose the election because his worthless justice department wouldn't get off their dead asses and go after the republican governors and others who are responsible for the targeted elimination of potential Democratic voters. Texas voter-ID law is blocked A federal court on Thursday blocked a Texas law that would have required voters to show photo identification, ruling that the legislation would impose “strict, unforgiving burdens” on poor minority voters. Describing the law as the most stringent in the country, the unanimous decision by a three-judge panel marks the first time that a federal court has blocked a voter-ID law. It will reverberate politically through the November elections. Republicans and Democrats have been arguing over whether tough voter-ID laws in a number of states discriminate against African Americans and Hispanics. The panel at the U.S. District Court in Washington ruled that Texas had failed to show that the statute would not harm the voting rights of minorities in the state. In addition, the judges found that evidence indicated that the cost of obtaining a photo ID to vote would fall most heavily on African American and Hispanic voters. Evidence submitted by Texas to prove that its law did not discriminate was “unpersuasive, invalid, or both,” David S. Tatel, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, wrote in the panel’s 56-page opinion. Voting Rights Act cases must be decided by a special panel of three federal judges. more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/texas-voter-id-law-struck-down/2012/08/30/4a07e270-f2ad-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_story.html |
Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 04:09 PM
Canuckistanian (42,197 posts)
3. Eric Holder. Again.
|
Friend of the powerful, protector of the criminals.
|
Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 04:14 PM
Vidar (18,335 posts)
4. Our Corruption Department is bought off again.
Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 04:19 PM
rachel1 (538 posts)
5. 8th Amendment? What 8th Amendment?!
|
Just "interrogate" suspects as you please!
|
Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 04:21 PM
FiveGoodMen (13,238 posts)
6. It's not fascism when WE do it!
|
|
Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 04:38 PM
zipplewrath (8,912 posts)
7. Clear as mud
|
It isn't even clear what they are talking about here. 101 detainees. CIA. 2 deaths. There were more than 101 detainees. There were more than two deaths. Not only the CIA committed acts of torture. This seems so narrowly focused as to assure they missed anything that might have needed prosecution. And I'd bet ya a few nickles that they NEVER considered conspiracy to commit torture charges on the people that requested permission from the White House in the first place.
|
Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 04:55 PM
stupidicus (465 posts)
8. and the torture Bush admitted to?
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/03/george-bush-us-waterboarded-terror-mastermind
did he do it personally or something? The simple fact of the matter appears to be, they won't go after the mob members because they lead to the godfather of it all. This and the lack of prosecution over the war crime the Iraq War was, has forever darkened our beacon of liberty and justice in the eyes of the world. Just wait until someone gets on their soapbox about human rights in some muslim country again as justification for military action. And of course, it's also the best evidence for a two-tier criminal justice system to be found in this country as well. |
Response to stupidicus (Reply #8)
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 05:03 PM
AtomicKitten (39,586 posts)
9. he didn't admit to torture
|
he bragged about it
|
Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 05:17 PM
coalition_unwilling (14,180 posts)
12. But when any enemy captures and tortures U.S. servicepeople, why that's
|
Last edited Thu Aug 30, 2012, 05:22 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) a crime against humanity.
The hypocrisy and amorality of this country fucking makes me sick sometimes. It's not torture when "WE" do it???? WTF????? N.B. One U.S. serviceperson remains a captive of the Afghan resistance. We can't say a fucking thing if the resistance starts torturing him now. NOT ONE FUCKING THING. WE HAVE NO STANDING LEFT. |
Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 05:30 PM
bemildred (67,505 posts)
13. True to form.
|
Weakest AG I can remember, and I remember Meese.
|
Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 05:34 PM
Solly Mack (49,491 posts)
14. Disgusting. I've nothing but contempt to offer.
|
"The approach taken in the probe was not to prosecute anyone who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel regarding the interrogation of detainees." (that so-called "legal guidance" known as the Torture Memos)
Manadel al-Jamadi (aka "the ice man")
http://www.salon.com/2006/03/14/chapter_5/ I'd scream but it wouldn't change anything. |
Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 06:16 PM
byeya (1,963 posts)
15. Not something to be proud of. The Justice Dept is as bad as the bad old days and
|
in a little kid way, I remember back to Herbert Brownell(I think).
Anyway, Holder is no Bobby kennedy; he doesn't even match up to Eliot Richardson. It's sad and disgusting. |
Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 06:17 PM
bvar22 (29,528 posts)
16. Reminds me of Bush-the-Lesser looking for WMD in the White House.
|
Nope! No criminals here.
None under this desk, none behind this chair. Hahahahahahaha. All the tortures and murders just happened all by themselves. No wrong doings on Wall Street either, and not a single War Criminal or War Profiteer in the Bush White House either!
Where is my Rubber Stamp? Case Closed! Time to go keep America safe from the pot smokers. I have come to despise Eric Holder. Go Along with the Rich & Powerful to Get Along with the Rich and Powerful. History won't be kind to him. |
Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 06:18 PM
Smilo (1,886 posts)
17. I am speechless
|
....... we tell other countries that they should do this and that regarding democracy and then we do whatever the hell we want. Sadly this will just stir up a hornets' nest among those who hate America.
P.S. Where the hell is the justice for Bradley Manning....... oh yeah that's different / snark! |
Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 06:46 PM
AnotherMcIntosh (7,543 posts)
19. Overwhelming evidence! Openly admitted war criminals! And none of them will be prosecuted!
|
If the war criminals were any smarter, they would have been governmental-funded banksters.
|
Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 07:23 PM
guyton (549 posts)
21. Eric Holder now criminally liable?
|
I seem to recall a commentary by Jonathan Turley (http://jonathanturley.org) that if we failed to enforce our anti-torture laws, then those that fail to act are guilty in the eyes of the international treaties that we've signed.
I wonder if Eric Holder still feels safe from arrest if he were to visit Europe? Re Obama's looking forward guidance. I am looking forward ... to the next set of jerks to abuse their power since it's clear that they can get away with it. Oh yeah, we already kill US citizens without so much as an indictment, and have essentially no enforcement of the 4th Amendment. I guess the future is here. |
Response to guyton (Reply #21)
Wed Sep 5, 2012, 02:23 PM
Freddie Stubbs (28,545 posts)
27. Horse shit! That would mean that President Obama would be liable to be arrested too
|
|
Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 07:51 PM
cstanleytech (5,302 posts)
22. Very disappointed with this but hardly surprised as
|
our country does have a history of cover ups just like the other nations we pretend to be better than.
|
Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 11:52 PM
blkmusclmachine (2,860 posts)
24. Surprise ! Surprise ! Surprise !
|
Keep lookin' forward, you ingrates !!
|
Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 07:49 AM
panzerfaust (2,703 posts)


