CIA or CYA?

But that I am forbid/To tell the secrets of my
prison house, I could a tale unfold whose lightest word
Would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood,
Make thy two eyes like stars start from their spheres,
Thy knotted and combined locks to part,
And each particular hair to stand on end
Like quills upon the fretful porcupine.
--Hamlet (I, v), William Shakespeare

Where secrecy or mystery begins,
vice or roguery is not far off
--Samuel Johnson
__________

The Justice Department announced last week that it has opened a formal criminal investigation into the CIA's destruction of interrogation tapes, appointing a career prosecutor "to examine whether intelligence officials broke the law by destroying videos of exceptionally harsh questioning [a.k.a. "torture"] of terrorism suspects" (Criminal probe on CIA Tapes Opened.)

The question is, did intelligence officials break the law by torturing suspects? Whether justice will be served revolves around the handling of the facts: is the questioning of suspects a criminal matter to be adjudicated in a legally constituted court, OR, will the intelligence remain secret by dint of its, uh, secretness, and the suspects shipped off to gulags?

Once a prisoner is tortured, the testimony is fruit of a poisoned tree, and would be inadmissible in a court of law. It is not possible to Miranda someone before you start torturing them, remembering that the CIA is not a police agency nor a prison administration.

"The decision opens the door to fresh scrutiny of the CIA's activities by the FBI, which clashed repeatedly with CIA field officers over the use of the harsh interrogation techniques and ultimately withdrew its own agents from interrogations to avoid entanglement in activities that senior FBI officials considered improper."

"Improper" is a Miss Manners words. White shoes after Labor day is "improper;" using a dessert fork at dinner is improper. Torture is illegal.

"The CIA issued a statement promising to 'cooperate fully with this investigation,' which senior officials had expected." Ranger will believe this when it is conclusively shown that the White House cooperated in the Libby investigation. When white rabbits run 'round with pocket watches.

The entire investigation is a distracting farce to take the Congress away from pressing issues. The core issue is that the White House issued illegal directives to the CIA and contract personnel authorizing the use of torture. Even if CIA personnel are found guilty of torture, it is a lesser fact than that of the operating order which approved the action.

It is disgusting that any organ of the U.S. government would torture people. More disgusting yet that the leaders giving these orders were never willing to put their asses on the line, and have suffered nothing more onerous personally than poor quality cocaine or booze. If there is a god, there will be hell to pay.

If charges are brought and a trial ensues, the administration will claim state secrets as a defense. Failing that, George W. Bush will commute or pardon. Ranger prognostication: broad Presidential pardons for CIA personnel before this duck leaves office (Libby will get his, too.) The entire process is a charade that besmirches the integrity of the U.S. legal system.

"Although the tapes in question were not provided to any court or to the members of the government-appointed 9/11 Commission, they were evidently seen by CIA Inspector General John L. Helgerson, who disclosed in a statement yesterday that he plans to recuse himself from the criminal inquiry to avoid a conflict of interest."

Imagine the gall of this guy, recusing himself now. His actions, like those of the CIA directors who allowed the tapes' destruction, should be a focus of a criminal investigation. Administration attorneys are co-conspirators and should be viewed as such.

It is an impossible beast -- a CIA interrogation linked with the concept of prosecution and conviction. It can only be a show-trial. Is this song-and-dance what suffices as justice today?