Obama CIA pick backtracks on "torture" charge

[sabra]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON, Feb 6 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's pick to head the CIA retreated on Friday from a charge that the United States sent terrorism suspects to other countries so they could be tortured under questioning.

"On that particular quote, that people were transferred for purposes of torture, that was not the policy of the United States," Leon Panetta told a Senate hearing on his nomination to be director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

"To that extent, yes, I would retract that statement."

Panetta has long written of his opposition to abusive interrogations and torture. On the first day of his Senate Intelligence Committee confirmation hearing on Thursday, he was asked whether the CIA would continue "extraordinary renditions," where prisoners are sent outside the United States for questioning.

He replied that Obama had banned the use of secret "black sites" for questioning last month. "That kind of extraordinary rendition, where we send someone for the purposes of torture or for actions by another country that violate our human values, that has been forbidden by the executive order," he said.

Read more: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N06286884.htm

[global1]

1. Why The Backtrack?.......

Is this to protect the previous administration?

[EFerrari]

8. No. To me it looks like Panetta was told to fuzz up what his policy will be.

[jody]

2. That's "Change" we can trust. n/t

[proud progressive]

3. i will repeat again: no matter d or r, they are all self-aggrandizing money-whores

we,the people, will be used by them so long as we allow it

[readmoreoften]

14. Agreed.

[Politicalboi]

4. I hope he just trying to get the vote

And fool these assholes till he's in. What are they gonna do if he changes it back after he's voted in. When they investigate they will have to backtrack their backtrack.

[ProgressIn2008]

5. Here's a key quote: "CIA might continue to send suspects to third countries for questioning"

Although Obama banned the "black site" program, the CIA might continue to send suspects to third countries for questioning, provided there are verifiable assurances they would be treated humanely, Panetta said.

Verifiable assurances? From whom and according to what principles? With what accountability and under whose oversight?

Why not a full-stop commitment to the Geneva Conventions?

[bertman]

7. This steps on my next post a bit, but I am guessing that there are times when

you are dealing with someone who might be sent abroad where there are interrogators who speak the language; or who may have much better knowledge of the culture from which the detainee came; or some other nuance that we may not be aware of.

I think that Obama has sent the correct message and stated a new policy. It's up to the CIA to enforce it. That's Panetta's job.

[readmoreoften]

15. Um no. Rendition is not where you send people overseas for interrogators who 'speak the language'.

We have people trained in Arabic, Pashtu, and Farsi all over. We send 'suspects' to 'third' countries so that we can torture them outside of the jurisdiction of US Law and the eyes of the UN. For example, in Uzbekistan, they boil people in water if they don't talk. We don't do that here, so if we think boiling someone alive in front of someone else will make them 'talk' then we send them to Uzbekistan.

We know this because the British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, quit the foreign service after he discovered that British politicians were having Uzbek officials make local farmers who don't even speak Arabic say that they knew XYZ 'muslim terrorist' in London upon pain of being boiled to death from the waist down. So this has evolved to if you need "info" about a guy you picked up in London who you "just know" is a bad guy, you press a local impoverished farmer half a world away to admit that he 'knows' him. Then you send the guy 'you know is a bad guy' to Uzbekistan so that he'll ' confess.'

Check out the documentary extras on the DVD for the movie Rendition. Read Trevor Paglen's "Torture Taxi", etc.

[bertman]

6. I don't understand all the fuss. Panetta simply stated that it WAS the policy of the U.S.

to transfer people to other countries for torture. This is not news. He is admitting that the Bush Administration did that. Then he reiterates that Obama's executive order forbids torture EVEN if the CIA chooses to send someone overseas for interrogation.

[EFerrari]

9. The problem is he's lying and we all know it. Torture was our policy.

And while as a member of the new administration, it is his job to protect the federal government from litigation, as someone testifying before Congress, he is committing perjury.

[bobthedrummer]

10. We already know who committed crimes in the installed criminal Bush/Cheney admin

that's why they've GOT TO BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST FOR THEIR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, THEIR WAR PROFITEERING, AND TREASON.

[EFerrari]

13. And Obama has to prosecute because there is clear evidence of torture.

That's the law.

[bobthedrummer]

28. Yet the nominee for DCI Panetta has publicly stated no prosecution for CIA operatives

:banghead:

[bertman]

11. Please go back and read his statement. He said that he is retracting his earlier statement

that "that was not the policy of the United States." So, he is saying in effect that IT WAS the policy.

[EFerrari]

12. This was his earlier statement:

President Barack Obama's pick to head the CIA retreated on Friday from a charge that the United States sent terrorism suspects to other countries so they could be tortured under questioning.

[bertman]

17. Actually that was REUTERS' statement about what Panetta said.

[EFerrari]

19. Yes, and it's a clear re-statement.

I think a White House lawyer said, "you can't say that" to him.

[bertman]

20. Okay, after re-reading this for the 100th time I see where our interpretations diverge.

To me, Panetta is only admitting that HE cannot PROVE that under BushCo people were transferred for purposes of torture. So, he felt it appropriate to recant his charges that they had been transferred for purposes of torture. Which is certainly a statement worth making considering he is about to become the CIA Director.

He also elaborated by saying that he suspected they were true based on public reports, which seems pretty damn logical to me. But, Panetta is right that it is not proven--YET.

My contention is that we should not be disheartened that he recanted his previous comment because he restated that President Obama's executive order provides that there are safeguards against torture even if detainees are sent overseas. Given that he is going to be CIA chief I feel good about this overall.

[EFerrari]

25. I like Leon Panetta. He's going to do a good job, imho.

His problem here is that there are too many accounts of CIA doing exactly what he claims not to know they did. Too many people have come forward with actual testimony. And, he better get used to it because while the prosecutions will be mostly the responsibility of Justice, he will have to deal with them, too.

[bertman]

29. I agree. I also agree that he probably got "the word" from a White House lawyer to

chill.

Despite having testimony to that effect there is still the burden of verification and corroboration which will have to be dealt with at a later time, by Justice, and by his crew, as you note.

[chill_wind]

16. Meanwhile: Panetta: No prosecution for CIA interrogators/torturers

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration will not prosecute CIA officers who participated in harsh interrogations that critics say crossed the line into torture, CIA Director-nominee Leon Panetta said Friday.

Asked by The Associated Press if that was official policy, Panetta said, "That is the case."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iNqjrsQ96LSw38bHitcinz_SQAWgD96684PO1

So cross that one off.

[truebrit71]

18. Um...this is "Change" how exactly?

So we'll let the torturers off the hook, and NOT prosectute their old bosses and will continue on with the old policies as if last November never happened...

Brilliant!

[chill_wind]

23. This is Constitional Lawer Obama change, I guess.

eom

[placton]

21. Once again, we DFHs get tossed over the side -

along with decency.

[chill_wind]

27. UN Human Rights Chief: There is no let-out clause

Calling for a thorough investigation into allegations of torture at Guantánamo, she said, ``under international law, there is an absolute prohibition against torture, and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.''

''There is no let-out clause,'' Pillay stressed. ``There must be accountability for those who have ordered such practices or carried them out, and victims should receive recompense.''

Pillay, who was a South African judge before taking the top U.N. human rights post headquartered in Geneva last summer, also raised concerns about U.S. detentions in locations outside the United States including Afghanistan and Iraq.

''There have been many disturbing questions about the legality of overseas centers such as the Bagram base in Afghanistan,'' she said. ``These too need to be resolved quickly and satisfactorily, in order to reestablish full respect for human rights across the board.''

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/americas/guantanamo/story/868096.html

Thursday, 01.22.09

[bertman]

30. There's a huge difference between not prosecuting the CIA officers who did as they were

told by their superiors, meaning torturing detainees, and prosecuting those at the top who sent the orders down the line.

In any hierarchical structure like the military, CIA, FBI, the guys on the bottom do what they are told to do. In this case, I'm sure that the word came down that the President/OLC had approved the "enhanced" interrogation techniques so the field operatives could use them.

So, for me, the statement by Panetta is a message to the CIA field officers that they are not going to be the subjects of a witchhunt similar to the one that Lynde England and the Army folks went through.

Now, the question is: will the big fish who approved and ordered this be prosecuted?

[Solly Mack]

22. Yes it was. It was Bush/Cheney policy and there's absolutely no good reason for pretending otherwise

That's why the people kidnapped off the street by the CIA were sent to Egypt and Morocco. (among other places)




ACLU Sues Boeing Subsidiary for Participation in CIA Kidnapping and Torture Flights

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/29920prs20070530.html

To pretend otherwise is to prop up the crimes of the Bush/Cheney admin by lying about them.

[Garbo 2004]

24. Yes. What other explanation for sending a Canadian citizen from US to Syria for "questioning." n/t

[Solly Mack]

26. None.

And those who hide behind (bullshit) "assurances" of no torture from a country known to torture are just as guilty as the ones doing the torture.

Yes, we know Egypt tortures people but they told us they wouldn't torture the person we snatched off the street and flew to Egypt for interrogation.

I mean, seriously!