Citizen G'kar: Musings on Earth

November 02, 2005

Isn't a criminal government urgent enough?

washingtonpost.com
While the Defense Department has produced volumes of public reports and testimony about its detention practices and rules after the abuse scandals at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at Guantanamo Bay, the CIA has not even acknowledged the existence of its black sites. To do so, say officials familiar with the program, could open the U.S. government to legal challenges, particularly in foreign courts, and increase the risk of political condemnation at home and abroad.


But the revelations of widespread prisoner abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. military -- which operates under published rules and transparent oversight of Congress -- have increased concern among lawmakers, foreign governments and human rights groups about the opaque CIA system. Those concerns escalated last month, when Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Porter J. Goss asked Congress to exempt CIA employees from legislation already endorsed by 90 senators that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoner in U.S. custody.


Although the CIA will not acknowledge details of its system, intelligence officials defend the agency's approach, arguing that the successful defense of the country requires that the agency be empowered to hold and interrogate suspected terrorists for as long as necessary and without restrictions imposed by the U.S. legal system or even by the military tribunals established for prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.

It appears that the CIA has been running a Gulag of the very nastiest kind, where they operate above the law. We have a President who commit fraud to get into this war, the torture Vice President who has been operating outside the law for 5 years, and a Republican Congress who will not hold them accountable for impeachable offences.
And the Republicans say that shutting down the Senate was inappropriate, a secret session should be saved for urgent situations. Isn't a criminal government urgent enough?

No comments: