There’s an article in Time about various CIA officials worried that they’ll be held accountable for any war crimes they committed. (Via Democracy Arsenal).
Apparently Sen. Feinstein is stepping up to the plate on investigations. That means the intelligence committee head is joining with Sen. Leahy, who chairs judiciary, to call for probes.
Here’s a quote from one of the complainers:
By second-guessing the staffers now, warn the Agency veterans, Feinstein's investigation will have a "chilling effect on people who are asked to do risky things for this administration," says a former senior CIA official.
Really, you mean that enforcing the law means people will be less likely to break the law in the future? That sounds like it might set some sort of dangerous precedent leading to a nightmare ‘rule of law’ scenario. Similarly, I’m not finding the “they were briefed” excuse all that compelling. Last time I checked, the Geneva Conventions didn’t contain an exceptions for Congressional briefings. Funny how the CIA destroyed 92 interrogations videotapes. It’s almost as if they felt they had something to hide.
That said, I will certainly give them this point:
Staffers at the CIA will wonder why they are being singled out for investigation for executing the Bush Administration's policies, "while whose who made those policies are busy writing their memoirs," says Paul Pillar, who was the agency's national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000-05, and now teaches at Georgetown University.
Generally speaking, I’ve got no problem giving these people amnesty if they testify under oath about what they did and who gave what orders. Accountability should rest with the decision makers. I similarly have no complaints if they want to reveal who in Congress was told what. Only fair really.
Recent Comments