Attorney General Eric Holder to Appoint Prosecutor To Investigate CIA Terror Interrogations

Source: Washington Post

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has decided to appoint a prosecutor to examine nearly a dozen cases in which CIA interrogators and contractors may have violated anti-torture laws and other statutes when they allegedly threatened terrorism suspects, according to two sources familiar with the move.

Holder is poised to name John Durham, a career Justice Department prosecutor from Connecticut, to lead the inquiry, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the process is not complete.

Durham's mandate, the sources added, will be relatively narrow: to look at whether there is enough evidence to launch a full-scale criminal investigation of current and former CIA personnel who may have broken the law in their dealings with detainees. Many of the harshest CIA interrogation techniques have not been employed against terrorism suspects for four years or more.

The attorney general selected Durham in part because the longtime prosecutor is familiar with the CIA and its past interrogation regime. For nearly two years, Durham has been probing whether laws against obstruction or false statements were violated in connection with the 2005 destruction of CIA videotapes. The tapes allegedly depicted brutal scenes including waterboarding of some of the agency's high value detainees. That inquiry is proceeding before a grand jury in Alexandria, although lawyers following the investigation have cast doubt on whether it will result in any criminal charges.



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/24/AR2009082401743.html?hpid=topnews

---

Hip hip hooray!

Recommended.

Holder is giving this job to a Bush special counsel. That only makes perfect sense if the idea is to hire an experienced Bush cover-up professional.

that would generate a post from you that would not be negative. You make reference to "Durham covering up again" without any factual basis by which you make that statement.

From the WP article:

But nearly as important in the high-stakes analysis will be Durham, 59, an assistant U.S. attorney in Connecticut who has investigated Boston mob kingpins, corrupt FBI agents and his state's GOP governor. Durham rarely speaks publicly, but in private he cracks jokes, follows the Boston Red Sox and regularly attends Mass with his wife of several decades. One of his four sons followed in his father's footsteps and now serves as a federal prosecutor in Brooklyn.

Though a registered Republican, Durham generally is regarded as apolitical, and attorneys general from both parties -- including Janet Reno, Michael B. Mukasey and Holder -- have tapped him for their most difficult assignments.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/24/AR2009082401743.html?hpid=topnews

Another article on the appointment of Durham:

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-cia-john-durham-eric-holder-0824,0,975238.story

Nowhere am I finding anything that even infers he has/is covering up anything, it is quite the reverse, he seems well respected by all sides but, I suspect, that very respect makes Mr. Durham MORE suspicious rather than less.

Bush did not fire the USA that were political, and Obama keeps them on the job! What, we are supposed to praise Obama for his Bushness??

Bush fired the US Attorneys FOR political reasons, if they weren't toady enough they were gone. President Obama is choosing to revert to the traditional methods of replacement and you are unhappy. President Obama hired BACK two of the US Attorneys fired by Bush, Daniel Bogden and David Iglesias.

Were Obama to fire the US Attorneys simply BECAUSE they were appointed by Bush he might then merit the term "his Bushness". He has done nothing like Bush in this matter and, because he isn't like Bush, you ARE not happy. Your stance, imo, is highly hypocritical.

I note you did NOT proffer any links to back up your original accusation re John Durham, instead you moved to a totally different accusation. That's unfortunate but not unexpected.

Put words in your own mouth, not mine.

Did his usual guest Joanthan Turley.

It sounds good as a headline, but it can bring about little in the way of indictments or in the way of setting boundaries to see that it won't happen again. In fact, at the end of their discussion, the two men were mentioning how this sounds like Powerful Somebodies might wanna be reserving these powers for themselves.

You want to change the system, you don't go after the hired guns.

You go after the man in charge.

Then, prosecute the underlings.

I know it's a long-shot, but here's to hoping.

When it serves them, the CIA is willing to work with the White House but in an altercation between the two, the CIA always wins. I suspect the people being investigated will sing like canaries about who was spending all his time over at the CIA massaging information and who was micromanaging the setting up of the torture systems and who was monitoring closely those torture sessions and so on. May they sing before Crashcart goes home to Satan. That, and may the special prosecutor not cover it up.

but such is the nature of a whitewash.

Let me know when they decide to investigate the decision makers and those at the top. Until then, yawn.

The appropriate press releases will be issued. Does anyone really think that those that truly ordered the torture will ever be prosecuted? They may, but not in this country. And it doesn't matter who sits in the White House.

that this morning on NPR.

He and Holder are afraid of heights.

You see, the real bad apples are at the top of the tree.

----

The underlings roll over on the man in charge.

:bounce:

Just askin' :dilemma:

We had half an investigation over Abu Ghraib and it turned out to be nothing but a whitewash, which we would have been better off without.

I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

who is running for the border huh?

:rofl:

He fit's in just fine with all the other registered Republican USAs still working in Obama's DoJ .... go figure!!

While the idea of a torturer getting off scott free turns my stomach, these weren't just the actions of rogue agents. The prosecutions must go straight to the top.

"A separate internal Justice Department ethics report on the professionalism of lawyers who blessed the questioning techniques continues to undergo declassification review and is not likely to be released imminently."

Cheney, Addington, Yoo, Baybee, Gonzales & Co. get a pass.

Now, about those bad apples . . .

If there isn't a water tight case against those that did order the torture, it could be a political bath for him. He has a very tight line he has to walk. I don't see anything wrong with taking a year or two to build a case. This is just the beginning.

as to the gross illegality of many of the acts, of
conspiracy to commit them, to purport to authorize them,
to obstruct accountability by destruction of evidence,
false statements ... and on and on. There is no "good faith"
belief that torture could be used any prisoner detained by the
united states, no "good faith" reliance on lawyers memos... no
prior precedent ANYWHERE condones these abominations...

A cretin could get convictions on damn near everybody.
This is not about a difficult legal case, its about
a difficult POLITICAL case.

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who doesn't think foot-dragging and spinelessness is a valid reason to be complicit in crime by not restoring abd following the rule of law.

Sure, that's the way it "should" be. But remember, the Supreme Court has only gotten WORSE since they ruled that it was unconstitutional to count all those legally cast votes in Bush v Gore. They are even WORSE now.

I'm not sure whether or not it would be a good idea to have THIS particular court rule on the efficacy of the Bush/Cheney torture regime. I would be against it. I don't want them deciding this kind of thing. I don't trust them to do the right thing.

There is no statute of limitations on conspiring to coerce and murder witnesses (the whole purpose behind the torture regime), so there is no running clock on this. We should probably focus on changing the court, first. Maybe impeach Scalia for spending the night with Cheney while Cheney was a defendant in a case he was hearing. That alone seems like it should disqualify him as a justice, especially since he refused to recuse himself when he was asked to do so. I honestly think he could be successfully impeached over it. Who in Congress would defend him on this kind of thing? He had an overnighter with the defendent. In a case that he was preparing to rule on. What kind of judge does this, and what kind of fool would defend this in front of the American people? I would love to see them try.


There are other constructive steps, besides a traditional trial, that can be taken at this time. It isn't too late for Congress to impeach Bush/Cheney, either, as far as I can tell. That would keep any decision out of the hands of the Supreme Court. I don't know, I just don't trust the Roberts court.

of the food chain with this investigation. I wanna see Cheney and Bush in a frog march!

motherfuckers. :toast:

Julie

Here we go again.

already say that CIA would not be held accountable? Of course he says a lot of things.

Chair of RNC

Sho Nuff Amigo.

WHITEWATER-1977 18 years ago(1995)

Newt and 73 new Barbarians in House spent per GAO $110,0000,000 on Hearings(13)/Investigations in an effort to destroy an administration.

Juanita Boaddrick-- 1978-17 years past

Paula Jones 1991

PAYBACK? YES YES YES

I want them to charge 139 and break Reagan record of 138.

cswinney2@triad.rr.com

based on the table of contents it looks rather bleak for some of the worst of the bad. We cannot allow our government to torture in our names.

Starr was about WJC and will not stop till he gets to Bush/Cheney? Please..........

You may be held accountable for following unlawful orders, but those above you will not be held accountable for issuing them. Welcome to the Brave New World Order.

investigate the Bush administration. Certainly, I hope the CIA will rat out the Bush Administration and force the issue, but geez, this is playing weasily.

Yesterday I said I thought a lot more ground work had to be laid before this would happen and it looks like I was wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6374404#6375045

You know... Sometimes it's just the best thing to be wrong :D This is most excellent news, I hope they let this investigation go straight to the douchebags responsible the most, bush/cheney.

.............................


crickets

All of our "Check in if you want a Torture Investigation" threads worked!

the Justice Dept. was serious about prosecutions for Torture, there is plenty of evidence
to put Bush/Cheney in Chains.

...there has been and they refuse to consider it.



It's a pipe dream if anyone here believes real justice is coming.

This could lead to a Congressional Food Fight.

It is now clear from studying American History that Congressional Food Fights were the cause of the Civil War, the Depression, and the plagues of the second decade of the 20th century.

And also Frank Zappa's misdiagnosed prostate cancer in 1991.

I'm glad there's a different standard of justice for the powerful elites. They need to be free to torture and start bogus wars with complete abandon, for the good of us all!

-90% Jimmy

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

this is just show, to appease anyone that elected Obama and expected the rule of law to be respected.....

I will expect them to say there was not enough evidence (since destroyed or lost) to convict, and that will be used to prevent any further reviews of any aspect of the criminal Bush regime....

Nothing will come of this....there is no rule of law in the US, especially as it relates to the government, or politicians.

The Bush Junta went way off its "no special prosecutors" path in the waning days
of the term to ensure control of the CIA investigation by appointing Durham.
No Obama and Holder want to pick the same guy to investigate the Bush Junta?

This is a trial balloon that needs to be shot down right now!

=======================
http://www.slate.com/id/2181265/
The Inside-OutsiderCan the CIA tapes investigation truly be an independent one?
By Dahlia LithwickPosted Thursday, Jan. 3, 2008

When John Durham was named yesterday to head the federal investigation over CIA torture tapes, Attorney General Michael Mukasey accidentally unleashed a slew of adjectives that haven't been used since, well, since Michael Mukasey was nominated to be attorney general.

Newspaper accounts of Durham were quick to label him as "tough," "apolitical," and a Washington "outsider" who "avoids the spotlight." If those descriptors sound awfully familiar, it's because they were precisely the words used just a few months back to describe Mukasey himself. At the time of his nomination, Mukasey was also widely celebrated as a man more devoted to separating right from wrong than to partisan politics. He, too, was lauded as tough yet fair. But as we soon learned at his confirmation hearings, and again when he told Congress and the federal courts to stay out of the CIA tapes investigation, even the most independent-minded and apolitical souls can somehow morph into David Addington once they've sipped the Bush administration's Kool-Aid. Those adjectives are starting to lose their luster.

..................

=======================

And this from a writer who does not understand Fitz let Bush and Cheney off the hook!!!