Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,099
- 245
So, let me get this straight. You believe that these 'career' lawyers and investigators, who are appointed/hired by politicians - or those working for the govt - do not have a political axe to grind? Or that their bosses, with a nod and wink from those in power - won't tell them to desist? I suppose you think supreme court justices are not political appointments either?
Funny.
The Bush administration never got any flack that I know of for attempting to interfere with the SG office, unlike the Obama administration.
Who appointed those SG's again during Bush's tenure...
You should educate yourself on the facts before expounding on them
A former Justice Department official describes the Eastern District task force's process:
The CIA discovers misconduct, which the CIA inspector general investigates. The information seems to suggest misconduct. They go to DOJ. DOJ tells them to stop and that [Justice] will now look at the issue, gather evidence, and investigate it themselves. They must decide if there is a reasonable belief that they could obtain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. They looked at it. They made a decision and declined [to prosecute]. They go back to the CIA, which can, and in several instances did, review the matters for internal discipline.
Another individual with direct knowledge of the career prosecutors' work explains that while some of the allegations in the CIA inspector general's report seem startling, "the evidence was very weak." He continues, "A detainee said X but there was no proof to support it."
Declination memos of the type drafted in these cases, according to former Justice Department officials, are considered the "crown jewels" of the department, which strenuously resists releasing them. (Decisions not to prosecute are rarely the subject of public comment, given the risk of tainting suspects' reputations or impairing other investigations.) If the decisions not to prosecute were reversed, however, and a new process launched retracing the work of the task force, the CIA defendants would certainly demand all of the information that served as the basis for the government's original declinations. If the government had information concerning problematic witnesses, defendants' lack of knowledge of applicable interrogation guidelines, or other reasons not to prosecute, this material would be essential to the defense--and likely fatal to the prosecution's case.
A former Justice Department lawyer explains that any new prosecution would likely face "an insurmountable problem." A respected career prosecutor like Durham would find it "very difficult not to reach the same conclusion" unless new facts had emerged.
Eric Holder's Anti-CIA Witch Hunt - CBS News
Some of those people were hired under Clinton, not Bush. The investigation was entirely open, honest, and above board. The only reason for anyone to reopen it would be to score political points. I know you think scoring polical points on National Security is a good idea, you demonstrate that with your support of the TSA. that does not mean that you get to lie and distort the facts.