Holder re-opens CIA probe - another Obama flip-flop!

Who is in charge at the White House?

It doesn't sound like it's Barack Hussein Obama.

His employees disregard his words and act on their own accord.

Despite Obama's pledges to "look forward, not back" at CIA interrogation techniques and whether to pursue a special prosecutor to investigate them, Eric Holder has done just that. He has appointed John Durham to lead the investigation.

What is Obama's response to this insubordination?

The White House reiterated in a statement Obama's desire to "look forward, not back" but said "ultimately determinations about whether someone broke the law are made independently by the attorney general."

www.reuters.com...

Bullcrap, Obama. You're supposed to be the boss. Eric Holder is your employee. You always fancy yourself as the equivalent of great former presidents, so why don't you take the stance of Harry Truman: The buck stops here.

And what is the reason that Eric Holder has decided to re-open this probe? It seems like our men at the CIA actually made threats to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed!!!

Mind you, they didn't carry them out; they just threatened his family, if there was another attack on the US.

This is politics at it's slimiest. We need the CIA to keep our nation secure. We don't need them hobbled by some rookie Attorney General's attempts to make a name for himself.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday named a special prosecutor to probe CIA prisoner abuse cases, a move that could distract President Barack Obama from his drive to reform the healthcare system.

Holder's decision, which promises political headaches for Obama, came after the Justice Department's ethics watchdog recommended considering prosecution of Central Intelligence Agency employees or contractors for harsh interrogations in Iraq and Afghanistan that went beyond approved limits.

"I fully realize that my decision to commence this preliminary review will be controversial," Holder said in a statement. "In this case, given all of the information currently available, it is clear to me that this review is the only responsible course of action for me to take."

Obama, I hope you fail.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Who is in charge at the White House?

It doesn't sound like it's Barack Hussein Obama.

His employees disregard his words and act on their own accord.

True that! Rahm Emanuel is in actuality in charge at the White House. Obama was simply the vehicle for his ascension.

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


I agree. Rahm is a dangerous person. He's been staying out of the limelight lately, which worries me. I'd much rather have him out in the open, where we can watch him...

Obama is the POTUS. He's trying to tell everyone he doesn't have the power to reign in his appointees? I agree with you jsobecky. Bullcrap.

He knows exactly what Holder is doing.

The CIA has nothing to do with keeping America "safe" from "terrorists".

You think Leon Panetta would be in charge if that was the case?

The CIA is nothing more than a tool of Wall Street.

If they decide to investigate anything it is because it benefits a major Wall Street corporate interest.

If they decide to provide information for the public, congress, or the adminstration to act on, it is information carefully constructed to aid a major Wall Street corporate interest.

Leon Panetta

LOL

What a joke.

Anyone who uses the "let's move forward not backward" as an excuse to overlook crimes, obviously does not know that defense doesn't work in any court room in America.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
Anyone who uses the "let's move forward not backward" as an excuse to overlook crimes, obviously does not know that defense doesn't work in any court room in America.

Well that the best flip flop thus far IMO...

This seems to strike a nerve with some of you, is it because you thought W was a good president, above the law or justified in taking any means necessary?

I personally think this is a good thing. It shows that we can disagree with The Almighty Obama without being considered a terrorist!

Then again, the FBI and the CIA might be plotting their capture and detainment techniques right now. They're ready for him...

reply to post by LetTheTruthBeTold

I personally think this is a good thing. It shows that we can disagree with The Almighty Obama without being considered a terrorist!

You can disagree with Obama just as long as it helps him wiggle out of a pesky pledge that he had made.

Like no lobbyists in his admin

Like no earmarks in his budgets

Like...well, you get the picture.

'It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department." –Attorney General Eric Holder, April 2009

"Justice Department Names Prosecutor to Reopen CIA Abuse Cases" –Wall Street Journal, yesterday

Mr. Holder had it right the first time. His about-face yesterday, compounded by his release of a 2004 internal CIA report on that agency's handling of terrorists, opens a political war that President Obama, the CIA and above all the country will live to regret.

online.wsj.com...

It's good to see people doing their jobs instead of simply doing what the president tells them to do. Something that has become increasingly rare over the last decade. Also, if they have ample evidence of illegal activities, it needs to be investigated regardless of the political fallout.

This is actually exactly what I thought would happen and I'm very pleased!

Yes, Obama said he wanted to look forward, not backward. He is being magnanimous, playing the 'front man' and trying to appeal to the Congressional Republicans, with whom he hopes to keep an open discourse and from whom he may even get a few votes on some of his agenda items.

He also said, "determinations about whether someone broke the law are made independently by the attorney general", which is exactly what has happened and exactly how it should be, in my opinion.

Obama is not a king. He doesn't tell everyone how to do their jobs. He selected his administration leaders because he trusts them to do their jobs independently of his opinions, which is VITAL in a good administration. This is exactly what has happened!

Frankly, I think he has always preferred that Holder conduct an investigation, but wanted HIS (Obama's) job to be concentrated on looking forward.

Obama did not tell Holder not to conduct an investigation, so all the accusations of insubordination are completely unfounded. He left it up to Holder. And I'm so glad Holder is doing the right thing!

reply to post by Kaploink

It's good to see people doing their jobs instead of simply doing what the president tells them to do. Something that has become increasingly rare over the last decade. Also, if they have ample evidence of illegal activities, it needs to be investigated regardless of the political fallout.

Riiight.

And I guess the decision to drop the case against the New Black Panther Party members was made in the atmosphere of fairness and 'independent of Obama's opinions', eh?

Sort of an example of 'social justice'. Color-blind, of course.

The president is the chief LEO in the US. The AG is a cabinet position. The president bears ultimate responsibility for the actions of the AG.

Obama wanted this done. He is just looking for a scapegoat for his decision.

Besides, both of them stated in April that they would not prosecute. Why the change of heart? Hint: begins with 'p' and ends with 'olitics'.

An investigation has already been done, and the CIA operatives cleared. The only reason this is being re-opened is purely political.

If there's one thing we should have learned by now, it's that just because Cheney says something, that doesn't mean it's true.

United States Attorney General

United States Attorney General is the head of the United States Department of Justice (see 28 U.S.C. § 503) concerned with legal affairs and is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States government.

Cheney Disagrees

"The president is the chief law enforcement officer in the administration."
...
“The attorney general has a unique position in the cabinet obviously,” McCain said. “He can’t be told what to do by the president of the United States.”
...
Cheney appears to be taking an expansive view of Article II of the Constitution, which says: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States.” Yet in practice and common understanding, the chief law enforcement officer of the United States is the Attorney General.

This isn't the first time Cheney has taken an expansive view of something in the Constitution... It's no wonder. He stands to come out of this investigation with blood on his hands.

Nice try to deflect the discussion away from Barry and onto Cheney...

Unfortunately for you and Obama, Cheney reflects the opinions of the majority of Americans. You know, those who do not defend Obama, right or wrong.

reply to post by jsobecky


I'm sorry, Cheney had one focus and that was to do anything to prevent another attack including having those under his command to commit crimes. The attacks of 9/11 happened under his watch and I'm sure he must feel guilty about that assuming he didn't know anything about it. I cannot support breaking laws to "protect us." This nation is under distress because it has become a nation of men rather than a nation of laws.

I feel silly debating conservative issues with a conservative. Laws rules this nation not man's warped idea of how to keep us safe by smearing our good name around the world.

reply to post by jsobecky


Actually, not so much. If an AG proves to be corrupt or incompetent, then the President bears the responsibility of having appointed a corrupt or incompetent AG.

However, the President is not the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.

The AG was first created in 1789:

The Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, sec. 35, 1 Stat. 73, 92-93 (1789) created the Office of the Attorney General. Originally a one-person part-time position, the Attorney General was to be "learned in the law" with the duty "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments, touching any matters that may concern their departments."

In 1870, Congress created the Department of Justice:

setting it up as "an executive department of the government of the United States" with the Attorney General as its head. Officially coming into existence on July 1, 1870, the Department of Justice, pursuant to the 1870 Act, was to handle the legal business of the United States. The Act gave the Department control over all criminal prosecutions and civil suits in which the United States had an interest. In addition, the Act gave the Attorney General and the Department control over federal law enforcement.

Emphasis mine.

Source for both quotes: DOJ Website

So it is not correct to state that the President is the chief law enforcement officer of the US.


[edit on 31-8-2009 by Open_Minded Skeptic]

Cheney is all over the news, spewing that the president is the chief law enforcement officer in the US in order to blame this investigation on Obama, instead of putting the responsibility on Holder, where it belongs. That's happening in this thread, too.

Dick doesn't know what he's talking about. Even if he DID reflect the opinions of the majority of Americans (which is an outlandish joke in itself, seeing that his approval ratings barely register) it wouldn't matter. The law is the law.

I railed on Obama for his whole "looking forward, not backward" speech and hoped that he would change his mind. I was pissed!

I'm not defending Obama, I'm defending Holder!

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


You're confusing who carries out the day to day details with who is the boss.

The president is also the CiC, though you won't see him driving a Humvee in Baghdad during a firestorm.

Nice try, though.