From The Cafferty File:
Attorney General Eric Holder has named a federal prosecutor to investigate allegations of torture by the CIA. This coincides with the release of the 2004 Inspector General’s report of CIA interrogation tactics including waterboarding, staging mock executions, and threatening suspects with guns, power drills, and the safety of their family members.
It also mentions moving detainees to prisons in countries where torture is practiced. A redacted version of the report was first released after the ACLU sued last year but clearly the details were in the redacted sections.
This is all happening as the President announced a change in intelligence gathering — shifting the responsibility for terrorism interrogations to the FBI and away from the CIA.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney has said all along the Inspector General’s report would prove that interrogation tactics were successful in obtaining useful information from detainees that prevented additional attacks on the U.S. He says we should be praising the people responsible for conducting these interrogations. Cheney is also raising questions about the Obama Administration’s ability to protect Americans.
Nine Republican lawmakers have sent a letter to the Attorney General urging him not to launch a criminal investigation because it would jeopardize “security for all Americans, chill future intelligence activities,” and could “leave us more vulnerable to attack.”
The point of the investigation is to determine if laws were broken. For most people, when a law is broken there are consequences. The question remains whether the people who authorized all this stuff will ever be held accountable.
Here’s my question to you: Is naming a special prosecutor to investigate torture a good idea?
Sylvia from San Diego, California writes:
Jack, As a former New Yorker, I will never forget what happened on 9/11/2001. If torture provides the necessary information to save lives, then do it! I thank God that we have brave men and women in the CIA who have kept us safe for the last 9 years. To put their methods on trial is criminal , insane and I bet Osama bin Laden is laughing his ass off at us.
JWC from Atlanta, Georgia writes:
The big dogs of this travesty, those with rank and privilege who called these regrettable instances of torture, have to be chased down and prosecuted. The Generals, Defense Secretaries, Vice Presidents, and Presidents under whose watch this outrage occurred should be harshly dealt with up to and including punishment, and notice thus given to the world that America still holds the high moral ground.
Kirk from Apple Valley, Minnesota writes:
I suppose it depends on whether you wish to crawl in the mud with the same people you’re fighting or whether you wish to adhere to the aspirations of what the United States of America is supposed to inspire. Personally, I’ll give up some security if it means I don’t have to crawl under the rock where the likes of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Osama bin Laden live.
No, our President has already stated we need to look forward on these issues: so is he going to pull the old flip-flop? It’s a diversion. The President’s and Congress’ poll numbers are down; they’re taking a beating, so they return to a tired old theme of bashing the Bush Administration. The American people can see through it. We need our President to step up and be a leader.
Jack of course there should be a special prosecutor. Was there one for sex in the White House? Was that okay? So which is the lesser evil? Did we accept the torture and vile undertakings of The Nazis after WWII or were the Nuremberg trials a sham? Did we accept then the notion that if I’m told to do wrong I must obey? I think not.
Hop from Tehachapi, California writes:
Seriously Jack, none of this rises to the level of a stain on a blue dress. Now that’s immoral behavior. Get with the program and adjust your priorities. What kind of publican are you?