 |
|
Protecting their hide. Re: CIA pushing in the bureaucratic scrummage for continued authorization of harsh interrogation methods. Occur to anyone that CIA officers may have a legal reason to be concerned should the law not retroactively legalize what they've already been ordered to do? Check out those insurance policies.
Update: See this from Newsweek as well: "As many as 20 CIA officials and contractors could face legal charges in Germany for their alleged role in the abduction of Khaled el-Masri, a German national once wrongly suspected of involvement with 9/11 conspirators, German officials say. Amid new disclosures last week by a German TV show, a Munich prosecutor confirmed to NEWSWEEK that he is conducting a probe into the people who carried out the abduction—an inquiry that could soon lead to arrest warrants. The el-Masri case underscores continuing legal threats facing CIA officials overseas despite last week's deal on a bill that would authorize the agency to continue using aggressive interrogation techniques. The White House says the measure is needed to provide legal protection for CIA officials accused of violating the Geneva Conventions. But the bill may do little to protect officers involved in 'extraordinary renditions.'" But what about for those who had command responsibility? Who authorized their activities?