• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Court rules CIA is above the law

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
I believe the entire dismissal was based on the fact that prosecutors couldn't prove that those who destroyed the tapes knew of a signed court order prior to doing so, but I could be wrong...?
Sort of. A few things went on here. One was the special prosecutor declined to prosecute for obstruction because he couldn't prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

The second is that the plaintiffs (ACLU, etc.) petitioned for civil contempt for violation of the court orders and the court wouldn't grant any remedies beyond awarding the plaintiffs their attorney's fees because the remedies for civil contempt are limited.

Civil contempt is not to punish bad acts but rather to force compliance with the court's orders. The classic example is locking up the journalist who refuses to reveal his sources. The journalist will be set free at the moment he decides to comply. The court's reasoning here was that the tapes were already destroyed and the CIA did everything they were ordered to do subsequently in terms of producing all documents related to the tapes and their destruction. There was nothing further to comply with, and hence no remedy under the theory of civil contempt.

There is also something called criminal contempt and this does have the purpose of punishing the bad act of disobeying the order. The trouble is that criminal contempt requires proof that the act was done willfully and with knowledge of the order. They were not prosecuted for criminal contempt for the same reason they weren't prosecuted for obstruction: because it couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Incidentally, internal e-mails of the CIA disclose that they destroyed the tapes to avoid bad publicity, and also revealed that the tapes depicted 88 incidents of water boarding, some going beyond the version of it that the Bush DoJ claimed was legal. It's pretty clear that they destroyed the tapes to avoid exposure of illegal conduct.

- wolf
 
Last edited:

FDF12389

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2005
5,234
7
76
I believe the entire dismissal was based on the fact that prosecutors couldn't prove that those who destroyed the tapes knew of a signed court order prior to doing so, but I could be wrong...?
If a company did that, the ruling would have gone much differently, just sayin.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Without a state, there is no "people." Just stateless nomads without a cause, a flag or a name. The needs of the state must always come first, because if the state isn't healthy, it's wards certainly won't be.
You sound a lot like Chairman Mao.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
That's the problem: We've grown to value "rights" and "liberty" more than the common sense that will allow us to survive. Fortunately I believe over the past 30 years, people have become less and less aware of their "rights" and far less likely to fight about it when they're taken away, particularly when the alternative is an airplane flying into their workplace.
Just fyi, you are a sick, twisted, evil, ignorant, worthless, pitiable, vile, disgusting pile of dog shit. It sickens me that people like you exist, and scares me to death that you might in any way be involved in my nation. Just had to put that out there.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
I think you meant to say contempt?

I'm familiar with the legality of orders and the chain of command as a commissioned officer.

But just as orders may not be right, laws might not be right. We're nothing without our own judgment.

Either way, it sounds like you consider yourself WAY more fit to serve than I am, so please sign up at your earliest convenience and take my place. Or have you already served in the past?
If you are willing to ignore Court orders, then no, you are not qualified to serve. Maybe a 3rd world dictatorship would be to your liking? I hear in those countries, you wouldn't have to worry about following the law.

It's clear cut. You are required to obey all US law and legal orders in your CoC. Nothing in there says do what you think is right, screw the law. You're a disgrace.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Nebor, liberty is what I use as a guideline for what I would consider "common sense". A strong individual helps strengthen the whole. Unless you mean "liberty" and not actual liberty then I'm just confused....
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
If you are willing to ignore Court orders, then no, you are not qualified to serve. Maybe a 3rd world dictatorship would be to your liking? I hear in those countries, you wouldn't have to worry about following the law.

It's clear cut. You are required to obey all US law and legal orders in your CoC. Nothing in there says do what you think is right, screw the law. You're a disgrace.
The US military often operates outside of US law, both in the US and especially abroad. Court orders are the concern of a handful of people at the top of the CoC. Like when a federal court invalidated Don't Ask Don't tell about a year early, a military order was issued as a result. A court order certainly wasn't disseminated through the ranks.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,521
4,198
126
Nebor hates me because he hates himself and I'm just like him. Hehehehe. Regardless of how important to national defense the CIA might be and no matter how sworn I was to secrecy, I'd turn their ass in if they expected me to test dangerous chemicals on my fellow citizens. I make my own rules too. The means justify the ends only to a point. I believe that what you do should stand up in the light of day, that the best safeguard for action is truth that is known to all. Just look at the fact that Americans keep pointing back to this testing on citizens as a reason not to trust our own government. To create lack of trust is a crime. To do what will create lack of trust in the light of day is also a crime, one that asks others to cover for the criminals to keep those crimes unknown. Those who do wrong depend on the loyalty of others they corrupt by dragging them along under the pretext of national security.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
The US military often operates outside of US law, both in the US and especially abroad.
Go back to your high school government class please, because you don't understand what you are talking about.

You seriously are trying to tell me that US law doesn't apply to US government agencies outside the US? Really? So the FBI can take a prisoner 12miles off-shore and torture and kill him since it isn't illegal anymore? Really?

Or the military can lock people up in Gitmo with no rights? Whoops, can't do that either.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Go back to your high school government class please, because you don't understand what you are talking about.

You seriously are trying to tell me that US law doesn't apply to US government agencies outside the US? Really? So the FBI can take a prisoner 12miles off-shore and torture and kill him since it isn't illegal anymore? Really?

Or the military can lock people up in Gitmo with no rights? Whoops, can't do that either.
I... are you trolling me? Yes, we can do all of that and more.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
I... are you trolling me? Yes, we can do all of that and more.
Just to point out again how clueless you really are, from the CIA's webpage:

Internally, the CIA Office of Inspector General performs independent audits, inspections, investigations, and reviews of CIA programs and operations, and seeks to detect and deter fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. External to the CIA, both the Congress and the executive branch oversee the CIA’s activities. In addition, the CIA is responsible to the American people through their elected representatives, and, like other government agencies, acts in accordance with U.S. laws and executive orders. In the Executive Branch, the National Security Council—including the president, the vice president, the secretary of state, and the secretary of defense—provides guidance and direction for national foreign intelligence and counterintelligence activities. In Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as other committees, closely monitor the Agency’s reporting and programs. The CIA is not a policy-making organization; it advises the Director of National Intelligence on matters of foreign intelligence, and it conducts covert actions at the direction of the President.
Please note my bolded part, you know, the part where they say they follow US law.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Not legally, you can't. Are you like 12 years old?

You don't think the UCMJ applies world wide? Really?

The CIA doesn't have to follow US law? Really?
Aaah ok, you had me going there for a minute. :biggrin: I just woke up from a nap, I was on a crew served weapons range all day.
 

RocksteadyDotNet

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2008
3,152
1
0
Go back to your high school government class please, because you don't understand what you are talking about.

You seriously are trying to tell me that US law doesn't apply to US government agencies outside the US? Really? So the FBI can take a prisoner 12miles off-shore and torture and kill him since it isn't illegal anymore? Really?

Or the military can lock people up in Gitmo with no rights? Whoops, can't do that either.
Err, that's exactly what they do.
 

RocksteadyDotNet

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2008
3,152
1
0
Actually the people at Gitmo are treated fairly well compared to the ones kept in prisons in Afghanistan.
Well that makes it all ok then doesnt it...

Being held for 6 years without trail is ok as long as you're being treated better than people in Afghanistan?

Its fucking disgusting.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Err, that's exactly what they do.
Um, did you miss the part where the Supreme Court ruled that they do have the right of Habeus Corpus? Despite the government vehemently disagreeing the whole time?

The government claimed that that they were basically "outside of the law", and the USSC said no.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Um, did you miss the part where the Supreme Court ruled that they do have the right of Habeus Corpus? Despite the government vehemently disagreeing the whole time?

The government claimed that that they were basically "outside of the law", and the USSC said no.
IIRC they're still tried by military tribunals, and that ruling is why no new prisoners are sent there. All new prisoners from the GWOT are now kept in Afghanistan and a couple other ex-Soviet nations.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY