“Elections have their consequences.” In countries without the democratic tradition of America, those consequences may include putting the former leaders in jail, or worse. But that has never been the tradition in the US.
The history of America has been that those consequences have been political, a change in policy, appointment of advisers who were hated by the old regime, etc.
But has not been the Obama way. Since his election, Obama and his team have attempted to appease their political left by publicly denouncing the Bush Administration’s national security policies which kept us safe, even as they claimed Obama wants to look forward.Their disparagement has only fed the fueled the liberal demand for Bush prosecutions and lead to the announcement by Mr. Holder to appoint a prosecutor, even though the records show that an outside investigation has already been performed and the CIA has done a good job of punishing people who “crossed the line.”
Do you think the 2nd Amendment will be destroyed by the Biden Administration?
If the President really felt (as he said) “Nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past.” Holder would not have made his announcement of an investigation. This is a case of the President placing politics in front of protecting the life and limb of American Citizens. I shudder at the thought of what this will lead to. This is not just my opinion, today seven former directors of the Central Intelligence Agency urged President Obama to reverse Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to hold a criminal investigation of CIA interrogators who used enhanced techniques on detainees
Ex-CIA Chiefs Decry Holder Interrogator Probe in Letter to Obama
Seven former directors of the Central Intelligence Agency on Friday urged President Obama to reverse Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to hold a criminal investigation of CIA interrogators who used enhanced techniques on detainees.
The directors, whose tenures span back as far as 35 years, wrote a letter to the president saying the cases have already been investigated by the CIA and career prosecutors, and to reconsider those decisions makes it difficult for agents to believe they can safely follow legal guidance.
“Attorney General Holder’s decision to re-open the criminal investigation creates an atmosphere of continuous jeopardy for those whose cases the Department of Justice had previously declined to prosecute,” they wrote.
“Those men and women who undertake difficult intelligence assignments in the aftermath of an attack such as September 11 must believe there is permanence in the legal rules that govern their actions,” the seven added.
The letter was signed by former directors Michael Hayden, Porter Goss, George Tenet, John Deutch, R. James Woolsey, William Webster and James R. Schlesinger.
Last month, Holder appointed special prosecutor John Durham to examine allegations that terror suspects were abused at the hands of their CIA interrogators. The highly controversial decision comes as the Department of Justice released a 2004 report from the CIA’s inspector general detailing allegations of harsh interrogation practices, which Holder cited in his decision.
The report was accompanied by conclusions that the interrogations of the detainees had yielded valuable information that had prevented further progress by terrorists.
After Holder’s announcement, the White House said the president had no choice but to let the legal ramifications play out. The CIA then said it would pay for the legal expenses of the agents should they be prosecuted.
Current CIA Director Leon Panetta responded by a spokesman saying he appreciates Obama’s “strong support for the men and women of the CIA,” and suggested while he was in league with the sentiment of the directors, he is bound to the administration.
“The director has stood up for those who followed legal guidance on interrogation, and he will continue to do so,” said spokesman Paul Gimigliano.
“The CIA is cooperating with the official reviews now in progress, in part to see that they move as expeditiously as possible. The goal is to ensure that current agency operations-on which the safety of our country depends-center on protecting the nation,” Gimigliano added.
But in their letter to Obama, the directors wrote that not only is there a significant personal burden put on agents forced to defend themselves, “but this approach will seriously damage the willingness of many other intelligence officers to take risks to protect the country.”
They added that the president has the authority to decide which legal recommendations to permit for interrogation methods, but at no time is public disclosure helpful for intelligence officers trying to protect the U.S. from further attacks.
The directors also warned that if the investigations are opened up, they fear that the assistance given to the United States by foreign intelligence agencies may jeopardize future cooperation.
“Foreign services are already greatly concerned about the United States’ inability to maintain any secrets. They rightly fear that, through these additional investigations and the court proceedings that could follow, terrorists may learn how other countries came to our assistance in a time of peril,” they wrote. “As a result of the zeal on the part of some to uncover every action taken in the post-9/11 period, many countries may decide that they can no longer safely share intelligence or cooperate with us on future counter-terrorist operations.