Leon Panetta Absolves CIA Torturers…Why?

Date: Saturday, March 7, 2009 10:35 PM
Category: Allgov Blogs

On Thursday, CIA Director Leon Panetta sent an e-mail to CIA employees reassuring them that no one who engaged in torture would be held accountable as long as they were following orders. In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed, and President Clinton signed into law, the U.S. War Crimes Act. The Act, created and promoted by Republicans, made it a federal crime to commit a “grave breach” of the Geneva Conventions, meaning the deliberate “killing, torture or inhuman treatment” of detainees. It includes “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” Violations of the War Crimes Act that result in the death of a detainee carry the death penalty and they do not have a statute of limitations. Although it was initiated to prosecute foreigners who mistreat American prisoners, Congress, in an admirable display of bipartisan support for human rights, applied the law as well to American treatment of foreign prisoners of war, reasoning that we should hold ourselves to the same standards we hold others.

 
In a memo to President Bush dated January 25, 2002, then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales suggested that Bush find a way to avoid the rules of the Geneva Conventions as they relate to prisoners of war because that “substantially reduces the likelihood of prosecution under the War Crimes Act.” A week later, Attorney General John Ashcroft sent a memo to the president also stressing that opting out of the Geneva treaty “would provide the highest assurance that no court would subsequently entertain charges that American military officers, intelligence officials, or law enforcement officials violated Geneva Convention rules relating to field conduct, detention conduct or interrogation of detainees.” Ashcroft reminded Bush, “The War Crimes Act of 1996 makes violation of parts of the Geneva Convention a crime in the United States.”
 
This led to all sorts of twisted arguments that anyone picked up anywhere during the “War on Terror” wasn’t a prisoner of war and that anyone held at Guantánamo or Bagram was not subject to U.S. law. These arguments were rejected by the Supreme Court in its 2006 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision. Considering that the Pentagon has admitted that at least 35 detainees have been murdered by their guards, the question of bringing torture charges against CIA agents and others is not a theoretical issue.
 
Not to worry, though, because President Obama and CIA Director Panetta have made it clear that even murderers will not be called to justice as long as they can prove that they were just following orders.
 
This decision is so damaging to U.S. credibility abroad, that it is worth considering why Obama and Panetta would do such a thing. In a best case scenario, they are granting immunity to the torture perpetrators in order to build a case against those who gave the orders, specifically President Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Major General Geoffrey Miller and Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez  In a middle-ground scenario, Obama and Panetta are too wishy-washy to stand up to the CIA and to former Bush administration members. In a worst case scenario, they want to reserve for themselves the right to ignore U.S. law, just like the Bush team did. If this last scenario turns out to be the true one, it would be a tragedy, because it would send a message to future generations that all laws relating to human rights in the United States are irrelevant if the president says it is alright to ignore them.

Latest News

Undersecretary for Intelligence and Analysis: Who Is Dave Glawe?

No sooner did Glawe take over as DHS acting undersecretary in January than he found himself forced to defend President Trump’s proposed travel ban on Muslims from seven nations. Then came the leak of a report, created under his direction, from the Office of Intelligence and Analysis that disagreed with the premise of Trump’s travel ban that citizens of the seven countries posed a special threat. Trump officials emphasized that the report was a draft and not final.   read more

Qatar’s Ambassador to the United States: Who Is Meshal bin Hamad Al-Thani?

In June, shortly after Al-Thani’s arrival in Washington as Qatar's ambassador, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain moved to sever relations with Qatar, supposedly for financing terrorism. President Trump tweeted his support for the action, leaving Al-Thani, whose country hosts the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East, puzzled. “It’s unfortunate to see these tweets,” Al-Thani said. “We have close coordination with the U.S. They know our efforts to combat...terrorism.”   read more

Ambassador of the U.S. to New Zealand and Samoa: Who Is Scott Brown?

After 10 years as a male model and seven years of law practice, Brown entered politics when he was elected to several city positions in Wrentham, Mass. He later served multiple terms as a Republican in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. In 2010, Brown shocked the political world by winning a special election to fill the remainder of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s unfinished term, after Kennedy died. Brown lasted only two years in the Senate before losing his seat to Elizabeth Warren in 2012.   read more

U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See: Who Is Callista Gingrich?

In 1995, Gingrich became a clerk for the House Agriculture Committee. Two years earlier she had begun an affair with the man who would become her husband. Newt Gingrich remained married to his second wife, Marianne, until 1999. Callista and Newt were married in 2000. Callista continued to work for the Agriculture Committee until 2007, when she became president of Gingrich Productions, the couple’s multimedia production company that has produced films that feature them.   read more

Ambassador of the U.S. to the Bahamas: Who is Doug Manchester?

President Trump says the next U.S. ambassador to the Bahamas will be a rich, ultraconservative real estate developer and hotel owner who became a media figure, fathered a large family, and opposes same-sex marriage as an affront to “traditional” marriage but divorced his wife to marry a much younger woman from the former Soviet bloc…just like Trump. This Trump doppelganger is Doug Manchester, who contributed heavily to Trump’s presidential campaign and is now being rewarded with the nomination.   read more
see more...