But you also gotta give credit to Debra Burlingame, sister of one of the victims of 9/11, who used her chance to meet President Obama yesterday to gently prod him over the indictments of CIA interrogators.

Remember, CIA Director Leon Panetta admits that the initial info that led to finding bin Laden came, in part, from “enhanced interrogation techniques” used on detainees.

So why then, the prosecution? Well, Debra noted the irony, and asked the Prez to press Erik Holder to end them.

Obama said he wouldn’t.

Which is poop.

To me, prosecuting CIA agents after bin Laden’s death is like the Packers trading Aaron Rodgers to the Panthers after winning the Superbowl.

That’s not exactly like going to prison, but it is the Panthers.

(And yes, I made a sports metaphor. I do know my baseball)

Anyway, if the Justice Department had half a brain, they’d stop harassing the folks who just upped Obama’s approval rating. And Obama should focus on Holder himself, who seems to harbor bitterness against anyone who works in some capacity protecting our country.

I mean, I suppose waterboarding’s bad, but I guess it would be fine in front of a voting booth.

Anyway, the President wisely credited the CIA’s role in killing bin Laden, and added we may never know the names of those agents – due to the nature of the work.

That’s wrong.

If you prosecute them, you’ll know who the heroes are.

They’ll be behind bars.

And if you disagree with me, you sir are worse than Hitler.

Tonight:

Joe DeRosa!

Dana Vachon!

Elise Jordan!

Today my point is the LAW. I touched on it briefly in the article but no one seems to be discussing the LAW. Many on the left and maybe even some on the right are applauding the decision by Attorney General Eric Holder to name a special prosecutor. I only have one question: What crimes were committed? Those supporting the decision to name a prosecutor say, “torture.” 

 The federal statute can be found in Title 18 chapter 113C of the Federal Criminal Code and Rules. Section 2340 defines torture. Section 2340A says:

Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or life.

According to John Helgerson, who prepared the 2004 inspector general report for the CIA, the most egregious case was that of Abdul Wali, an Afghan suspected of rocket attacks on military bases. Wali died after four days in custody. A CIA contractor, David Passaro, was convicted in federal court of assault for the techniques he employed in June, 2003 during the interrogation. 

Federal career prosecutors have already reviewed the 2004 report and concur only one criminal case warranted prosecution. I can only assume there were no other situations warranting the death penalty. Every pundit seems more concerned with the water-boarding and “threats” to Abu Zubayda, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM), and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, none of whom died from the interrogations. 

The Statue of Limitations for federal offenses is spelled out in Title 18 Section 3282:

Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense, not capital, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after such offense shall have been committed. 

In other words, unless someone was killed all prosecutions must be brought within five years. Math was never my strongest subject but the report came out in 2004. Obviously the incidents occurred earlier and it’s now 2009. To prosecute anyone the offense must have taken place after August, 2004 otherwise the Statute of Limitations has run. KSM was captured on March 1, 2003; Abu Zubayda in March 2002; and Abd a-Rahim al-Nashiri in 2002. Even assuming some interrogator violated the law prior to that date, he can’t be prosecuted. So why the need for a “special prosecutor” to review what career federal prosecutors have already studied? 

Maybe I’m missing something but this sure looks like a political move designed to distract the masses, embarrass the prior administration, and destroy morale at the CIA.

Prove me wrong.

Now Mr. Panetta is absolutely right about one thing: Cheney has been highly critical of the Obama Administration’s new tact toward terror. But that’s mainly because our new President has been so critical of the previous administration’s strategy, while now pretty much copying most of its key elements.

But after that, Panetta makes a fundamental error in his reasoning. See, he mistakes Cheney for a leftwinger. Remember, it was during the Bush Administration that the left milked the hell out of tragedy and calamity to make sure they won in November. Liberal bloggers never met a car bomb they didn’t front page, and lefty pontificators would wet themselves whenever an opportunity to portray our soldiers as seething barbarians presented itself. Hell, you remember the mini-industry of films made about how awful the Iraq war was. They failed miserably at the box office, but helped achieve a loftier goal: they pulled crisis out of success, cementing a win in November.

I used to call these folks patriotic terrorists – people who claim they love their country, but need that same country to suffer, so they can win. Cheney isn’t one of those people. At least to me, he’s always seemed to put the security of his country before everything else, especially his popularity. Which is probably why Panetta can’t stand him. Unlike Obama, Dick just doesn’t give a fuck.

Tonight we’ve got Mike Baker, Father Jonathan Morris, comedian Jesse Joyce, and much, much more.