Former CIA Directors May Be Prosecuted?
Update: Just like I predicted or more like interpreted … Samira Simone of CNN reports, "Obama on Tuesday left open the possibility of criminal prosecution, saying it would be up to Attorney General Eric Holder to decide whether to prosecute the former officials."
As the Barack Obama released Bush memos that accounted for the terrible atrocities authorized and executed on suspected terrorists, one would think that it would be former President George W. Bush that would be held to the stake. On the contrary, it is President Obama who is being criticized!
Right wing pundits are doing everything to spin this story in order to shield W from any condemnation. Their trite excuse of “national security” did not fail to be the reason why they oppose the release of the records this time around.
The Associated Press even dedicated an article titled, “CIA objections slowed torture memos release” which deceptive implies that the agency as a whole was opposed to the release of these records. In all honesty, it was just four former CIA directors … I wonder why they would be opposed to the release of these records? There could not be anything wrong with them, right?
It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why former CIA chiefs Michael Hayden, Porter Goss, George Tenet and John Deutch were concerned about the release of these interrogation memos.
Even though Obama promised immunity to any CIA operatives that engaged in this despicable behavior it does not mean that that top CIA officials or Bush Administration personnel would be held accountable for their actions?
Attorney General Eric Holder stated, “It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department.”
Perhaps, I am reading between the lines but the content of the text implies that immunity is limited to those applying the techniques approved by their superiors and does not necessarily extend to high ranking officials … say like the four former CIA Directors that were vocal about the release of the records.
It seems that right wing talking points may have worked because Obama visited the CIA to tell agents that he would support them. The CNN article reads, “In CIA visit, Obama defends interrogation memo release.”
Why in the world would Obama have to be defending anything? It was Bush that caused this problem and it is Obama that is coming clean to start off on the right path. Who really needs to be scrutinized right now? The President that discloses the shenanigans by their predecessor or the former President that made it permissible to practice torture … I mean “enhanced interrogation” techniques?