We need to review CIA actions overseas

POSTED ON Tuesday, September 01, 2009 AT 09:49PM

Advanced Search

Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board

Links

E-mail

Comments

More 'Opinion'

More Stories: Today's News | This Week

This editorial appears in the Sept. 2, 2009, Yakima Herald-Republic.

Republican leaders and other defenders of the George W. Bush presidency would be wise to turn down the rhetoric regarding plans by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate whether members of the Central Intelligence Agency and others broke the law during interrogations of terrorism suspects in overseas prisons.

While the investigation announced last week by Holder -- a Barack Obama appointee -- may, in fact, turn out to be politically motivated, there is no proof of that claim at this point. What does exist are enough questions about the treatment of War on Terror detainees that a legitimate review of whether interrogators broke U.S. laws is merited.

Holder's decision to appoint federal prosecutor John Durham to head the investigation followed public release of a heavily censored CIA inspector general's report from 2004. The report documented interrogation techniques that exceeded those approved by the Justice Department under Bush.

Frankly, we don't understand the right's objection to Holder's plan.

If the actions of American troops and other government representatives at Iraq's infamous Abu Ghraib prison can be reviewed (an investigation that landed several members of the military in the stockade), why should actions taken by CIA operatives and contractors not be subject to review? And if military tribunals can hold troops in Iraq and Afghanistan accountable (as they have) when their actions go beyond legitimate warfare, what is the problem with a similar review of what has gone on in prisons removed from the mental pressure cooker of combat?

Fact is, the vast majority of U.S. service men and women and their intelligence community counterparts perform their duties professionally and well within the law. We suspect those fine folks are no more anxious to serve alongside those who think rules don't apply to them than the rest of us are.

To be sure, Holder's investigators had better be prepared for some intense scrutiny of their own. Those who are convinced that their efforts are little more than an effort to discredit the Bush Administration and undermine the CIA will (and should) be watching closely for evidence to prove their assumptions.

Of course, those on the left also are scrutinizing the investigation. They complain that Holder should have included higher ranking Bush officials in the probe.

But who knows? If the attorney general's minions do play it straight, they might determine there were no significant failures when it came to rule following. We hope that is the result. But again, what we do know is that there are enough questions about what has transpired in overseas prisons to merit a sober review.

Let the skeptics cry foul loud and long if Holder's endeavor turns out to be political posturing, not a sober review of the facts. We will be at their side. But crying foul before the first questions have been asked isn't the right place to begin this debate.

* Members of the Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board are Michael Shepard, Bob Crider, Spencer Hatton and Karen Troianello.

Posted by Nick at 09/02/09 07:19AM Post ID#: #11504

Yeah, right. Do you think for a minute that there would be any practical way to do what you suggest? How would anyone EVER know that what information/evidence was gathered would be factual in any case?