I especially thought it was interesting that despite the fact that the CIA admits that legality of the method is questionable, they were basically trying to absolve themselves of any future or pending suit by pinning the blame upon the attorneys at the DOJ.
The C.I.A. director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, publicly admitted for the first time two weeks ago that the agency used waterboarding in 2002 and 2003 in the interrogation of three Qaeda suspects but said that the technique was no longer used, and its legality under current law is uncertain. The technique, which has been used since the Spanish Inquisition and has been found illegal in the past by American courts, involves water poured into the nose and mouth to create a feeling of drowning.
After General Hayden’s acknowledgment, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey rebuffed demands for a criminal investigation of interrogators who used waterboarding or of their superiors, saying C.I.A. officers could not be prosecuted for actions the Justice Department had advised them were legal. Mr. Jarrett’s review focuses on the government lawyers who gave that advice.
Three questions came to my mind as I read this, 1) if prior courts had held that the method was illegal, then what distinguishing factor did the lawyers find with modern day waterboarding, 2) if there were no distinguishing factors or if the factors were flimsy at best, to what extent did the DOJ lawyers compromise their professional ethics in order to provide their client (the CIA) with the results it desired and lastly 3) is this the beginnings of some convoluted form of command liability where the CIA is just going to claim that it cannot be held responsible for its practices simply b/c someone else told them it was fine?
Hmmm...
No comments:
Post a Comment