31 replies [Last post]
Offline
Joined: 04/01/2009
Posts: 435
F.B.I. supervisory special agent from 1997 to 2005 tells all

From todays NYT op ed pages.

"Fortunately for me, after I objected to the enhanced techniques, the message came through from Pat D’Amuro, an F.B.I. assistant director, that “we don’t do that,” and I was pulled out of the interrogations by the F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3206
F.B.I. supervisory special agent from 1997 to 2005 tells all

Uh-huh. Times are tough and a guy can really cash in nowadays by singing the liberal line in public.

Rather than parading someone like that in front of the media, why not just release the memos? Show us what we got out of those interrogations. If Soufan is right and we got nothing of substance, the memos would back the administration's claim and strengthen its position, right?

So why is Obama willing to release memos about techniques, but not memos about what was gained? Show us the data!

Offline
Joined: 04/01/2009
Posts: 435
F.B.I. supervisory special agent from 1997 to 2005 tells all

Their all a bunch of liberal liars, I mean socialsts, I mean Facists, I mean,,, oh the heck with it they're just too smart, and they have the weight of the law, and the opinion of the world, and the disgust of the American people at what was done in their name. But if they will just release the memos all will be well, why don't they release the memos that would have cleared our names??? Can they punk an old ex VP in jail? I can hear him muttering, "it's all in the memos" "they wouldn't release the memos, I'm inocent I tell you"

One thing I do know, having Cheney on TV being the living breathing face of the gee O pee isn't doing any good, Rush, Rove, losers. Turns out they tortured even before their convoluted cooked up leagalese, Condi in from the beginning, trade her penchant for shoes for some jailhouse slippes.

The memos, it's all in the memos.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3206
F.B.I. supervisory special agent from 1997 to 2005 tells all

Whole lot of foaming at the mouth there. Just one question:

And why is Obama unwilling to release the results of those interrogations?

Offline
Joined: 04/01/2009
Posts: 435
F.B.I. supervisory special agent from 1997 to 2005 tells all

Which results are you talking about? They will release anything anyone asks for.

To get info from the gov first you ask for them, not on TV but to the agency involved. It's called a Freedom of Information Request. Just like the one the ACLU got with the photos that are coming out Wednesday.

This is quickly leaving the arena of posture and bluster ala Fox, and entering the area of the law. People broke the law and neither Obama nor Fox not CNN can stop the thing. This is America, break a law, go to jail. Hope they throw the book at him.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3206
F.B.I. supervisory special agent from 1997 to 2005 tells all

You really have no idea how FOIA works, do you?

If authority deems the material classified and unreleasable, it doesn't get released. If FOIA gave the public access to anything, you could just write to Sandia Labs and get design details for a nuclear weapon.

Obama is simply declassifying things in order to release them for political advantage. But so far he's been unwilling to release the results of the interrogations. This way, he can feed the public only as much as he wants them to know, and legally withhold what he doesn't.

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1585
F.B.I. supervisory special agent from 1997 to 2005 tells all

The ACLU sued under the FOIA, but lost, It was ruled that the Photos were not subject to the FOIA.,They were in their 3rd or 4th appeal when Obama declassified the Interrogation memos. It was then that the Administration dropped their opposition to the appeals and the ACLU "won" their case.

Offline
Joined: 04/01/2009
Posts: 435
F.B.I. supervisory special agent from 1997 to 2005 tells all

John McCain November 29, 2007

"Following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding."

Newt Gringrich said,

"there is no place for abuse in what must be considered the family of man. There is no place for torture and arbitrary detention. There is no place for forced confessions. "

"the roots of American rule of law go back more than 700 years, to the signing of the Magna Carta. The foundation of American values, therefore, is not a passing priority or a temporary trend. "

In his statement on talking with the Chinese Pres. Zamin Oct 30, 1997

Regarding FOI requests the new policy is to grant all as the default position, if there are security issues then reconsider. The old default position was to reject requests as long as possible. Things changed around the beginning of February.

Seems like momentum is building, FBI says one thing, some former CIA say the other, no matter what it's obvious that crimes were commited, I'd say it's special prosecutor time and let the chips fall where they may. DOJ was in on it, they can't investigate themselves, There are quite a few detainees still not accounted for, pushing up daisies in Tland? The way I hear it the mess certainly isn't limited to Republicans, or politicians. Where was the press, where was the loyal opposition. If some Dems go down, well that's too bad. If people go to jail well that's just the way it goes, good ridance, bad rubish. Are any of these things capital offences?

I can't see the GOP liking the whole thing much, whoever the GOP is these days, hard to tell. Cheney must be the most reviled current US politician, sure wouldn't want him to be the public face of my party.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3206
F.B.I. supervisory special agent from 1997 to 2005 tells all

George Orwell said, "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

War is an ugly, ugly event. Think waterboarding's bad? How about the Dresden firestorm or over 100,000 killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? War is the ugliest of human endeavors, and no nation ever fought a war without doing something that could be deemed atrocious if the other side wrote the history books afterward.

So while our troops are in the field fighting a war against Muslim extremists who want to establish a global caliphate, we're gonna collapse into a cesspool of political autocannibalism by delving into this.

And just how do you figure this will help our national interests or keep Americans safer at home or abroad? Look at what happened when people decided to drag the Abu Ghraib investigation into the media.

The way they're doing this is downright sleazy, too. He's worried that if he goes after the CIA, he'll gut the intelligence machine he needs to keep us safe. And if he doesn't have the political strength to go after political leaders. So what does he do? Go after the lawyers who wrote the legal analyses!

So we're gonna ignore the people that did the waterboarding and prosecute people for writing a legal opinion?

I ask again: how is the upcoming 3-ring circus and resulting political civil war going to unify the country or improve our national security? Hmmm? Is this the politics of hope and bipartisanship? How many internet videos are we going to see of Americans being beheaded because of this?

The Islamists of the world are dancing with delight watching us turn implode like this. Bin Laden predicted this long before 9/11, and Obama is handing him his long-sought victory on a silver platter.

Offline
Joined: 04/01/2009
Posts: 435
F.B.I. supervisory special agent from 1997 to 2005 tells all

while reading other things I found this re the release of photos,

The Pentagon’s decision to release the pictures came after the A.C.L.U. prevailed at the Federal District Court level and before a panel of the Second Circuit. The full Second Circuit had declined to reconsider the panel’s decisions, and Robert Gibbs, the chief White House spokesman, said on Friday that Justice Department lawyers had concluded they would not be able to persuade the Supreme Court to review the case.

Sounds like the ACLU won in court is all that happened.

These are not acts of war, indeed the military's legal folks were all against it. These were decisions made by the civilians a long way from any wars. (civilians who actively avoided military service for the most part) We have pardoned and moved on twice already, and both times the smaller fry in the pardoned regime have come back to haunt us, Watergate and Iran Contra were the precursers to Iraq.

Muslim extremists and a global caliphate is tinfoil hat stuff. It's true that the Iraq war, Gitmo, and all the black sites have been a great recruiting tool for extremists, the cure isn't to make these tihngs more secret but to get rid of them, they aren't how America fights it's wars, that's why we have laws.

Our fight was with a tiny portion of Muslims, al qaeda, Afganistan is just to keep them from having a safe haven, and Iraq was some sort of messed up dady complex. How a police action that was being prosecuted by the FBI evolved into a war against a whole religion costing hundreds of billions is beyond me.

One thing I do know, and the whole world knows is that laws have been broken, what we do about it is the question.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3206
F.B.I. supervisory special agent from 1997 to 2005 tells all

Get a clue, Civet. Seriously, get a clue.

Tinfoil hat stuff? Before you go spouting off your ignorance like that, you might try reading something other than Kos. I earned a master's degree researching this stuff, and you're completely out of your element. There's a lot I could go into here, but here's one link that captures some of it:

http://hnn.us/articles/7378.html

As for the FOIA requests, I personally have denied some because of the classification of the material requested. There are a lot of reasons that can preclude release. To wit:

Exemption (b)(1) - National Security Information
Exemption (b)(2) - Internal Personnel Rules and Practices
- "High" (b)(2) - Substantial internal matters, disclosure would risk circumvention of a legal requirement
- "Low" (b)(2) - Internal matters that are essentially trivial in nature.
Exemption (b)(3) - Information exempt under other laws
Exemption (b)(4) - Confidential Business Information
Exemption (b)(5) - Inter or intra agency communication that is subject to deliberative process, litigation, and other privileges
Exemption (b)(6) - Personal Privacy
Exemption (b)(7) - Law Enforcement Records that implicate one of 6 enumerated concerns
Exemption (b)(8) - Financial Institutions
Exemption (b)(9) - Geological Information

The FOIA request for the photos dates back to 2003. The administration would've been fully within its rights to continue fighting release, and would have continued winning. The argument that the request was covered by Exemption (b)(1) and release of the photos would damage national security is an easy one to make -- especially after the Abu Ghraib circus. Releasing these photos was a conscious decision by the Obama administration.

If Obama didn't like these techniques, he would be fully within his rights to end them. He could've ended it as quietly as it was being conducted, like how we've done it before, without damaging our security. Do you honestly believe the CIA hasn't been cuffed and uncuffed by various administrations in the past?

Obama has one motivation in taking this public: playing to the far left. The fact that he's willing to sacrifice national security and hand the Islamists a major strategic victory in order to score a political point is downright sickening.