- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 25,893
- Reaction score
- 12,484
- Location
- New York, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
The Justice Department recently questioned military defense attorneys at Guantanamo Bay about whether photographs of CIA personnel, including covert officers, were unlawfully provided to detainees charged with organizing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to sources familiar with the investigation.
Investigators are looking into allegations that laws protecting classified information were breached when three lawyers showed their clients the photographs, the sources said. The lawyers were apparently attempting to identify CIA officers and contractors involved in the agency's interrogation of suspected al-Qaeda terrorists in facilities outside the United States, where the agency employed harsh techniques.
...
The photos were taken by researchers hired by the John Adams Project, a joint effort of the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, to support military counsel at Guantanamo Bay, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the inquiry. It was unclear whether the Justice Department is also examining those organizations.
Both groups have long said that they will zealously investigate the CIA's interrogation program at "black sites" worldwide as part of the defense of their clients. But government investigators are now looking into whether the defense team went too far by allegedly showing the detainees the photos of CIA officers, in some cases surreptitiously taken outside their homes.
Lawyers Showed Photos of Covert CIA Officers to Guantanamo Bay Detainees - washingtonpost.com
Let me get this straight: Some attorneys from the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers used information obtained in the course of defending their clients to hire investigators to take pictures of covert CIA operatives, and then showed them to Guantanamo detainees.
You've got to be ****ing kidding me.
There's a difference between zealous advocacy and....this. This is just wrong.
Get a grip, Right. What's the big deal? They took a few pictures of covert CIA operatives, that's all. Just their faces and a few identifying characteristics. It's not like anybody's name was published in the Washington Post by Robert Novak.Lawyers Showed Photos of Covert CIA Officers to Guantanamo Bay Detainees - washingtonpost.com
Let me get this straight: Some attorneys from the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers used information obtained in the course of defending their clients to hire investigators to take pictures of covert CIA operatives, and then showed them to Guantanamo detainees.
You've got to be ****ing kidding me.
There's a difference between zealous advocacy and....this. This is just wrong.
Lawyers Showed Photos of Covert CIA Officers to Guantanamo Bay Detainees - washingtonpost.com
Let me get this straight: Some attorneys from the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers used information obtained in the course of defending their clients to hire investigators to take pictures of covert CIA operatives, and then showed them to Guantanamo detainees.
You've got to be ****ing kidding me.
There's a difference between zealous advocacy and....this. This is just wrong.
Get a grip, Right. What's the big deal? They took a few pictures of covert CIA operatives, that's all. Just their faces and a few identifying characteristics. It's not like anybody's name was published in the Washington Post by Robert Novak.
Lawyers Showed Photos of Covert CIA Officers to Guantanamo Bay Detainees - washingtonpost.com
Let me get this straight: Some attorneys from the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers used information obtained in the course of defending their clients to hire investigators to take pictures of covert CIA operatives, and then showed them to Guantanamo detainees.
You've got to be ****ing kidding me.
There's a difference between zealous advocacy and....this. This is just wrong.
It is also unclear whether the inquiry involves violations of federal statutes prohibiting the identification of covert CIA officers or violations of military commission rules governing the disclosure of classified information, including to the defendants...
The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers also declined to address the specifics of the inquiry but questioned its timing.
It is "customary in our experience that any kind of investigation like these are conducted after legal proceedings are finished in the case so as not to interfere with the defense function, not to interfere with the rights of defendants, not to give the appearance that the government is looking to chill the defense function," said Joshua L. Dratel, counsel for the John Adams Project and a former board member of the NACDL, who spoke on behalf of the group.
Lawyers Showed Photos of Covert CIA Officers to Guantanamo Bay Detainees - washingtonpost.com
Let me get this straight: Some attorneys from the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers used information obtained in the course of defending their clients to hire investigators to take pictures of covert CIA operatives, and then showed them to Guantanamo detainees.
You've got to be ****ing kidding me.
There's a difference between zealous advocacy and....this. This is just wrong.
Thier status as "unlawful combatants" with no right to habeus corpus and detainment without probable cause or further rights is also unlawful.
As has already been stated this is treason, plain and simple, and is the direct result of actions of the Obama administration and Obama himself. All of these issues were thoroughly evaluated by the previous administration for seven years and their resultant best legal practices put in place and working properly. Military tribunals are historically proven to be the way to treat this type of combatant for obvious reasons. One of those reasons just hit the headlines.
They covertly determined US operative identities and photographed them and provided that information to the enemy. Almost a perfect definition!
Thier status as "unlawful combatants" with no right to habeus corpus and detainment without probable cause or further rights is also unlawful.
Read the article. It is not even certain if a law has been broken. Over the top rhetoric is silly and counterproductive.
As has already been stated this is treason, plain and simple, and is the direct result of actions of the Obama administration and Obama himself. All of these issues were thoroughly evaluated by the previous administration for seven years and their resultant best legal practices put in place and working properly. Military tribunals are historically proven to be the way to treat this type of combatant for obvious reasons. One of those reasons just hit the headlines.
They covertly determined US operative identities and photographed them and provided that information to the enemy. Almost a perfect definition!
Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention
I reread it. Still have the same opinion only now I see how one sided and embarassed the article was. Ohhh, the bad CIA and the courageous ACLU. 180 degrees from the truth. It's not entirely the fault of the reporter. As you well know, responsible officials are not permitted to make any comment regarding a classified matter. This report is simply spin from the executive branch.
The Washington Post could not determine how many and which CIA personnel were photographed, which photographs were shown to detainees, or when.
Well, I think we need to take a little step back.
So here's what we know to be fact: Nothing.
I say we look to our Constitution and to International law for an answer. It is understood that it's easier said than done. Thank you kindly for the clarifications though.
Well, all that information is classified, so...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?