Obama ending CIA interrogations

[SQLserver]

Attorney General Eric Holder has asked federal prosecutor John Durham to examine whether CIA interrogations of suspected terrorists were illegal, the Justice Department announced Monday.

The decision to place the FBI, rather than the CIA, in charge of interrogating suspected terrorists represents a major shift in U.S. national security policy.

Read more...

Excellent news, in my own opinion.

Also, take a look at Fox New's spin on this:

The Obama administration on Monday unveiled its latest takeover of a troubled industry -- this one the interrogation sector.

Takeover? LOL. How is moving some of the interrogations from the CIA to the FBI a "takeover"?

However, Fox does give us some useful information here:

According to senior administration officials, the administration has also decided that all U.S. interrogators will follow the rules for detainees laid out by the Army Field Manual.

The manual prohibits forcing detainees to be naked, threatening them with military dogs, exposing them to extreme heat or cold, conducting mock executions, depriving them of food, water, or medical care, and waterboarding.

This, coupled with the eventual close of the Guantanamo Bay Camp, is change I can believe in.(Or rather change I can rationally accept as beneficial to our society.)

Cheers,

SQLserver

[Fluffybunny]

I was just reading earlier that the most successful alqueda interrogations were done based on more standard police techniques, as they are more of a gang in operation than a full blown military(that is over-simplifying it), so the psychology/physiology that the FBI uses is more in line with todays police force. This is one of those situations that really gets misunderstood, and too many people assume that the only stuff that works is the bamboo under the nails, dislocated joints kind of stuff they see on tv, when that is not the case at all. It is the old adage of working smarter, not harder.

[preacherman76]

That is hilarious. The CIA didnt do anything they werent told to do. Nor will the FBI, now that they will take it over. This is all to make it look like 0bama is doing something about it, when he's really isnt doing anything at all. He could simply just tell the CIA,(of whom he has direct control over) to do things his way now. There is no need for such a shift in power, other than for show.

[Startraveler]

He could simply just tell the CIA,(of whom he has direct control over) to do things his way now. There is no need for such a shift in power, other than for show.

Read the article:

Asked to comment on the transfer of responsibility for interrogations from the CIA to the FBI, two former senior CIA officials said the agency never intended to handle detentions, and that it essentially was forced to do so as a result of its pursuit of suspected terrorists after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The CIA has been relieved of a charge that didn't fit well with its mission or culture. This is good for everyone.

[SQLserver]

This is all to make it look like 0bama is doing something about it, when he's really isnt doing anything at all

You must be incapable of reading.

According to senior administration officials, the administration has also decided that all U.S. interrogators will follow the rules for detainees laid out by the Army Field Manual.

The manual prohibits forcing detainees to be naked, threatening them with military dogs, exposing them to extreme heat or cold, conducting mock executions, depriving them of food, water, or medical care, and waterboarding.

Forceful interrogation methods that were used by the CIA under Bush can now no longer be used by the CIA or FBI under Obama.

Preacherman: Is this change or is this not change? (Actually, it is obvious to any sane person to be a huge change in policy, so ignore this rhetorical question. I suppose a more fit question is: "Are you even capable of admitting that Obama has made a change for the better in American foreign policy?")

[Fluffybunny]

That is hilarious. The CIA didnt do anything they werent told to do. Nor will the FBI, now that they will take it over. This is all to make it look like 0bama is doing something about it, when he's really isnt doing anything at all. He could simply just tell the CIA,(of whom he has direct control over) to do things his way now. There is no need for such a shift in power, other than for show.

You mean, other than the great success rate with the FBI techniques in finding group and individual terrorists months faster than cia techniques?

Are you really that hateful of obama that you would prefer the terrorists run free to spite the guy?

You are a wonderful example of partisan hatred that has caused so much trouble in this country; hatred beyond the love of their country, beyond the support of their neighbors, hatred so strong it would rather see the whole country lose than the other party win. Both extremes of the parties do it; and we see it here with several people...

[preacherman76]

You must be incapable of reading.

According to senior administration officials, the administration has also decided that all U.S. interrogators will follow the rules for detainees laid out by the Army Field Manual.

The manual prohibits forcing detainees to be naked, threatening them with military dogs, exposing them to extreme heat or cold, conducting mock executions, depriving them of food, water, or medical care, and waterboarding.

Forceful interrogation methods that were used by the CIA under Bush can now no longer be used by the CIA or FBI under Obama.

Preacherman: Is this change or is this not change? (Actually, it is obvious to any sane person to be a huge change in policy, so ignore this rhetorical question. I suppose a more fit question is: "Are you even capable of admitting that Obama has made a change for the better in American foreign policy?")

Does the army field manuel call for bringing prisoners over seas to be interrogated by other countries, or Americans for that matter?? How about the indefinite dentention of Americans who "might commit a crime". 0bama is just another BS polition, with one hand he shows you what you wants to see, with the other he does the oposite.

Edited August 27, 2009 by preacherman76

[preacherman76]

You mean, other than the great success rate with the FBI techniques in finding group and individual terrorists months faster than cia techniques?

Are you really that hateful of obama that you would prefer the terrorists run free to spite the guy?

You are a wonderful example of partisan hatred that has caused so much trouble in this country; hatred beyond the love of their country, beyond the support of their neighbors, hatred so strong it would rather see the whole country lose than the other party win. Both extremes of the parties do it; and we see it here with several people...

No Fluffy, its more that you are just blind to a lier who promised "hope", that you cant see what a evil bastered the guy is. Which terrorists? the 20,000 Americans added PER MONTH to the terror watch list?? Your damn right I hate him. I'd hate anyone who demonizes half the country as terrorists, cause they dont agree with him politicaly. And BTW the country has already lost. Its up to us who do love this country and what it has stood for to now determine how much loss is acceptable. To minimize it, we will have to fight him at every turn. Its folks like you, who either have no knowledge of, or willfuly ignore proven history, that some how think this man is heading us in the right direction.

And please, Im really asking please, stop painting me with the right wing brush. The thought of ever electing a republican again makes me want to litteraly puke.

[Fluffybunny]

No Fluffy, its more that you are just blind to a lier who promised "hope", that you cant see what a evil bastered the guy is. Which terrorists? the 20,000 Americans added PER MONTH to the terror watch list?? Your damn right I hate him. I'd hate anyone who demonizes half the country as terrorists, cause they dont agree with him politicaly. And BTW the country has already lost. Its up to us who do love this country and what it has stood for to now determine how much loss is acceptable. To minimize it, we will have to fight him at every turn. Its folks like you, who either have no knowledge of, or willfuly ignore proven history, that some how think this man is heading us in the right direction.

And please, Im really asking please, stop painting me with the right wing brush. The thought of ever electing a republican again makes me want to litteraly puke.

For someone who doesn't like the right wing brush, the color fits you rather well. I walked away from the Republican and democratic party when I was young and have been a Libertarian for decades. If that is what you are aiming for, that isn't how you come across.

You say that:

you, who either have no knowledge of, or willfuly ignore proven history,

Yet, it is a proven fact that FBI tactics works several times faster than CIA tactics when dealing with groups like Al queda. Now, you might think I am willfully ignorant of such issues, but I dealt directly with those being detained and interrogated. I am aware of such techniques and research and what is working best in the field. I am not talking about obama all together, just this one issue. personally, I cant stand the guy. I can separate myself from the rest of the issues enough to be objective and say, when a good choice is being made, and this is a good choice. I have some knowledge and experience in this particular area. Eight years in the Army does not go without some benefits.

It is interesting to see someone admit to being so full of hate for a president that they would rather see the people go free that would do harm to this country. That is an all time new...low I guess. Whatever...As for the republican issue, I have yet to hear you tear into a republican like you do democrats. You may want to be Libertarian or something, but from the outside you sound like the right wing gang here(you know their names) with the constant barrage of "Democrats/liberals are bad..."...and thats about it. If you were aiming for something less mainstream, you weren't very clear about it.

[preacherman76]

For someone who doesn't like the right wing brush, the color fits you rather well. I walked away from the Republican and democratic party when I was young and have been a Libertarian for decades. If that is what you are aiming for, that isn't how you come across.

How? I didnt support Bush or his illegal wars. I dont support 0bama and his continuation of the same. Im for small government, strong national defense, the bill of rights, the declaration of independance, and the constitution. This and the last several administrations have p***ed all over these documents. Not supporting government health care doesnt make me right wing. Not supporting illegal handling of prisoners, or potencial terrorists, doesnt make me right wing. Not believeing 0bama that he will now handle prisoners in a human way doesnt make me right wing. Especialy considering the fact that 0bama now has a 16 year old American being held indefinitly with no due process what so ever, for PRANK PHONE CALLS. This kids mother cant even find him. F 0bama, the man is a criminal.

You say that:

Yet, it is a proven fact that FBI tactics works several times faster than CIA tactics when dealing with groups like Al queda. Now, you might think I am willfully ignorant of such issues, but I dealt directly with those being detained and interrogated. I am aware of such techniques and research and what is working best in the field. I am not talking about obama all together, just this one issue. personally, I cant stand the guy. I can separate myself from the rest of the issues enough to be objective and say, when a good choice is being made, and this is a good choice. I have some knowledge and experience in this particular area. Eight years in the Army does not go without some benefits.

I was talking about 0bamas policies in general. Not just the FBI thing.

It is interesting to see someone admit to being so full of hate for a president that they would rather see the people go free that would do harm to this country. That is an all time new...low I guess.

What are you talking about? I never said anything about letting anyone go free, if it can be proven they have or plan to commit a crime. Now your being dishonest, and putting words in my mouth that I never said. Besides, if you really feel this way, that must mean you hate 0bama for releasing all those gitmo prisoners hu?

Whatever...As for the republican issue, I have yet to hear you tear into a republican like you do democrats. You may want to be Libertarian or something, but from the outside you sound like the right wing gang here(you know their names) with the constant barrage of "Democrats/liberals are bad..."...and thats about it. If you were aiming for something less mainstream, you weren't very clear about it.

To rip repubicans right now is a waste of time, they have no power. But Id go much further down the road of the crimes Bush commited then most on these boards. End Game is one of my favorite movies. And you couldnt be more wrong about me just bashing Dems/libs. In fact, I sided with Dems 90% of the time, when Bush was in office. I bash on a regular basis the entire left right paradigm. Even those who regularly disagree with me see that. Im a constitutionalist 150%.

[SQLserver]

Preacherman, you missed my question.

Is this or is this not a change for the better in terms of US terrorist negotiations?

Until you can answer this question with a Yes, I'll keep bringing it up. I don't think you can honestly bring yourself to admit that our President has done something you agree with, but hey, prove me wrong.

Especialy considering the fact that 0bama now has a 16 year old American being held indefinitly with no due process what so ever, for PRANK PHONE CALLS.

Could you please supply a source for this? If I recall correctly, this was that hilarious case we had a thread on in which it turned out that the kid, who made bomb threats, had been given a lawyer and a court session, while his insane mother was ranting to Alex Jones that he had been detained "because of the Patriot Act", although the Patriot Act has nothing to do with bomb threats and the courts denied it.

And, where exactly does the President have him detained? In the white house basement?

[preacherman76]

Preacherman, you missed my question.

Is this or is this not a change for the better in terms of US terrorist negotiations?

If your foolish enough to believe a man who continued Bush's policies of indefinite dentention, then sure. God knows I feel better about it now.

Until you can answer this question with a Yes, I'll keep bringing it up. I don't think you can honestly bring yourself to admit that our President has done something you agree with, but hey, prove me wrong.

When he takes the partiot act, rips it up in little pieces, tosses it on the white house lawn, then p***es on it, I'll back him on his policy's regarding prisoners.

Could you please supply a source for this? If I recall correctly, this was that hilarious case we had a thread on in which it turned out that the kid, who made bomb threats, had been given a lawyer and a court session, while his insane mother was ranting to Alex Jones that he had been detained "because of the Patriot Act", although the Patriot Act has nothing to do with bomb threats and the courts denied it.

MM, the kid is STILL being detained. Not found quitly of anything. This wasnt just on Alex Jones, it was a major media story.

And, where exactly does the President have him detained? In the white house basement?

They probably have him in the middle east, where they can still torcher prisoners, but not be directly responcible. You know, powers fully granted to them by the patriot act.

Edited August 27, 2009 by preacherman76

[AROCES]

Could you please supply a source for this? If I recall correctly, this was that hilarious case we had a thread on in which it turned out that the kid, who made bomb threats, had been given a lawyer and a court session, while his insane mother was ranting to Alex Jones that he had been detained "because of the Patriot Act", although the Patriot Act has nothing to do with bomb threats and the courts denied it.

And, where exactly does the President have him detained? In the white house basement?

This is very common with the conspiracy believers or gossipers, they see a report and that is it. It's a fact and they tell it to all friends and neighbors.

While the true story that would come out after is never talked about, for it's boring.

Edited August 27, 2009 by AROCES

[AROCES]

When he takes the partiot act, rips it up in little pieces, tosses it on the white house lawn, then p***es on it, I'll back him on his policy's regarding prisoners.

After all tha hoopla about Patriot Act when Congress was in GOP control and Bush was President. The Democrats have total control now and Patriot Act still exist.LOL Will the Liberals ever figure it out????

Edited August 27, 2009 by AROCES

[KRS-One]

MM, the kid is STILL being detained. Not found quitly of anything. This wasnt just on Alex Jones, it was a major media story.

Nobody hates the Patriot act more than I do, but the story about the kid is false.

It appears that, contrary to what I reported two days ago, Ashton Lundeby is not being held under the USA PATRIOT act.

Earlier today, a memo marked “Not for distribution outside law enforcement” was circulated among officials in Indiana — where Ashton is being held at the Thomas N. Frederick Juvenile Justice Center in South Bend. The memo complained of hostile publicity given to the case inspired by what were described as “false claims” from Ashton’s mother, Annette Lundeby, about the use of the PATRIOT act in the arrest and detention of her son.

Those claims led the office of US Attorney David Capp to issue a press release today insisting that the arrest and detention of Ashton Lundeby “is unrelated to the PATRIOT act.”

“The juvenile has appeared in court on three occasions, once in North Carolina for an initial hearing and a detention hearing, and twice in Indiana for a continued initial hearing and a status hearing,” the press release relates. “At each hearing, the juvenile was represented by counsel…. The juvenile is presently housed in a juvenile facility in the Northern District of Indiana where he does not have contact with adult offenders. His mother has been apprised of each court appearance and has attended the hearing in North Carolina; she did not appear at either of the hearings in Indiana.”

As the press release notes, Annette Lundeby was present during the initial hearing in North Carolina, and until today she was the only source available to describe the details of her son’s arrest and the terms of his detention. In interviews I conducted with her both on May 5 and 6, Mrs. Lundeby insisted that the PATRIOT act was invoked by the Feds in this case.

I reported her claims in good faith, buttressed by the assessment presented in the WRAL report from former U.S. Attorney Dan Boyce, as well as the fact — noted in the essay published on LRC two days ago — that the PATRIOT act’s definition of “domestic terrorism” has been used in at least one other case involving a juvenile accused of a serious crime.

In updates to the original story, I relate that a source close to the prosecution (not directly involved in the prosecution, but with detailed, first-hand knowledge of it) insists that the case against Ashton is strong enough that the use of such extraordinary measures would not be necessary.

Title 18, Section 844 (e) of the US Code makes it a felony punishable by a prison term of up to 10 years to make a bomb threat, either real or bogus, using “the mail, telephone, telegraph, or other instrument of interstate commerce….” That provision would explain the involvement of the FBI in a suspected bomb threat made from North Carolina against Purdue University in Indiana. Whatever the wisdom of that statute, its existence would appear to make use of the PATRIOT act gratuituous. This doesn’t mean that the Feds didn’t take the easy route, as Mrs. Lundeby claims, of course. But it does mean that if Ashton was involved in making bomb threats, he bought himself more trouble than he expected.

After all tha hoopla about Patriot Act when Congress was in GOP control and Bush was President. The Democrats have total control now and Patriot Act still exist.LOL Will the Liberals ever figure it out????

Just goes to show that the democrat party isn't all that liberal, doesn't it?

[SQLserver]

Sigh, Preacherman, we've been through this.

A 16-year-old North Carolina boy arrested for allegedly making a bomb threat against Purdue University has been charged as an adult for that threat, and for threats against eight other schools and two FBI offices, the Justice Department announced Wednesday.

Jones: And they said they are charging him under the Patriot Act, so –

Lundeby: They’re not saying that, but that’s exactly what they’re doing.

Jones: Well, it’s in the newspaper.

Lundeby: All their actions point towards that. But they don’t deny it either.

The claim that the boy is a victim of USA PATRIOT, though, appears to have been cut from whole cloth. While there’s plenty to criticize in that post-9/11 law, it doesn’t contain any provision that abrogates a defendant’s right to a trial. It’s also not responsible for making it illegal to phone in a bomb threat. That’s been a federal crime since 1939.

Much of the online fury was triggered by Annette Lundeby’s incorrect claim — uncritically reported by the station — that the boy was being held without any legal rights on the authority of the 2001 USA Patriot Act.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/07/lundeby-indictment/

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/lundeby/

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/teenage-bomb-threat-suspect-was-an-internet-prank-phone-call-star/

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/bloggers-tv-go-nuts-over-misleading-patriot-act-claim/

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/bloggers-tv-go-nuts-over-misleading-patriot-act-claim/

and

Those claims led the office of US Attorney David Capp to issue a press release today insisting that the arrest and detention of Ashton Lundeby "is unrelated to the PATRIOT act."

"The juvenile has appeared in court on three occasions, once in North Carolina for an initial hearing and a detention hearing, and twice in Indiana for a continued initial hearing and a status hearing," the press release relates. "At each hearing, the juvenile was represented by counsel....

http://heartkeepercommonroom.blogspot.com/2009/05/ashton-lundeby-updated-again.html

He was kept for a while without bail. This is completely legal, and quite frankly not unconstitutional.

[preacherman76]

But, the point is he needs to be charged with a crime, and then given a reasoanbly speedy jury trial (or reasonable bail if there is a delay in the trial) and he needs to be convicted of that crime *before* they "detain" him. Else, they could detain anybody and for no reason at all. Whether he is actually guilty of something or no is beside the point that we do not arrest people without probable cause and a procedure of a specific warrant so obtained, and that we *require* police officers to file charges on a timely basis (60 days in detention is *not* acceptable).

It's not the question of his guilt or innocence in making bomb threats that matters. It is the allegation that the FBI has arrested him and detained him for twiddles 60 days without charging him with any crime. That, they may not do.

[KRS-One]

It's not the question of his guilt or innocence in making bomb threats that matters. It is the allegation that the FBI has arrested him and detained him for twiddles 60 days without charging him with any crime. That, they may not do.

Actually, according to the articles you were linked to, the FBI DID charge him with a crime, and it's completely legal to hold an arrested individual until their trial. Of which he's had 3 already. The entire story was a lie cooked up by his mother.

The FBI investigated, obtained a warrant, and filed a criminal complaint. They then arrested him, charged him, and proceeded to honor fully his right to due process.

And then there's this:

The boy’s mother, Annette Lundeby, has even acknowledged in interviews that her son has been formally charged, has a court-appointed attorney, and has already made appearances in front of a judge.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/bloggers-tv-go-nuts-over-misleading-patriot-act-claim/#previouspost

Edited August 28, 2009 by KRS-One