Special Prosecutor Appointed for CIA Torture Investigation

The Obama administration came into office with a definite disinterest in prosecuting Bush administration officials for their many crimes. In an effort to be post-partisan, the new kids on the White House block were prepared to turn a blind eye to a war of aggression, no-bid contracts of dubious value and more. Attorney General Eric Holder, however, uncovered some new facts about the CIA's torturing of detainees in the global war on terror, and he has appointed career prosecutor John Durham as special prosecutor to handle about 10 or 12 cases involving acts that went beyond what the Bush administration's very lax guidelines allowed. This sounds quite contained, but it won't be.

The big argument against this move is the possible negative effect it would have on CIA personnel. This is complete and utter bovine droppings. The CIA is no different that any other organization in that a few rogues can make the whole thing look rotten to the core. That does far more long-term damage to members of the entity than a quick purge of the bad apples. A great many CIA personnel would like the air cleared.

The Orwellian named "enhanced interrogation techniques" (that is, torture) allowed under the Bush rules included war crimes like water boarding and sleep deprivation. The highly redacted, declassified CIA report, though, notes that one operative "admitted staging a 'mock execution' in the first days that . . . was open." The ellipsis indicates a redaction that refers to a particular base of operations. Mock executions are considered torture under international law. In other instances, CIA personnel or contractors threatened to kill detainees' children and to rape their mothers. Again, these surpass what the Bush administration allowed.

The Obama team originally said that no CIA personnel would face prosecution if they stayed within the guidelines. Since the actions in question aren't covered under the rules, Mr. Durham will go investigate them. The real issue is whether the people involved dreamed these ideas up all by themselves and acted without checking with superiors. Anyone familiar with the CIA's current culture knows that no field operative is going to color outside the lines without direct (if only verbal) approval, or even direction.

What is likely to happen is a single case is going to come to court in a few years, and some lowly CIA person or contractor will face a jury, and that person is going to sing like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. The prosecutors will go up the chain of command to find out just how high the evil went. The Abu Ghraib scandal was hushed up by the Army, which has its own rules for this sort of thing. In federal court, that can't happen. One wouldn't be surprised if individuals in the Office of the Vice President under Mr. Cheney get called as witnesses.

To many, this may sound far-fetched. Nevertheless, the same thing happened in 1973, when the trial of a few bumbling burglars spilled the beans on the Watergate break-in and cover-up. By August 1974, the Nixon presidency came to an end. In this instance, the Bush legacy could well wind up even more tarnished than it already is.

© Copyright 2009 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Kensington Review Home