This is known as "spin" .. or worse, as PSYOPS, of which you may have done a class or two or a hundred during your time at the CIA.
The perception you are attempting to create is that we are to unquestionably accept YOUR version of events and a massive coverup attempt by the CIA. Perhaps you have come to feel that if you bat these ideas around enough times, we will come to accept the premise of your argument. But some of us know that there is law involved and are far from forgetting about it.
The perception you are attempting to create is that we are to unquestionably accept YOUR version of events and a massive coverup attempt by the CIA. Perhaps you have come to feel that if you bat these ideas around enough times, we will come to accept the premise of your argument. But some of us know that there is law involved and are far from forgetting about it.
Unlike me, you have access to a vast army of lawyers and legal opinions; that would be in the nature of your executive job at the CIA .. to act as sincere, competant officer but your letter right from the off indicates you don't know where your directives are coming from. I'll make it simple for you:
The US Constitution - public affairs officers working for the CIA have a duty to upold 5 USC 3331 oath of office requirement to the US Constitution; and are not allowed to disclose false information designed to mislead criminal investigators, in this case war crimes prosecutors.
But Mr. Mansfield, you already know that charges of war crimes have been filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights about WAR CRIMES committed by the United States government. You are definitely trying to mislead the public by your publication of this letter. Your oath of office includes a promise to enforce Geneva. So my second question to you, Sir is:
to what extent have you failed to provide all the facts to show
you are fully doing your job per the Geneva requirements.
you are fully doing your job per the Geneva requirements.
I am going to PRESUME that you are not an attorney. This may or may not be the case. But YOUR employment in the CIA does mean that you are bound by LAW.
While you don't "legally" have a "legal duty under the legal profession" to do something this does not mean that you can fail to do what you should as a public affairs person, so I ask you, Mr. Mansfield,
While you don't "legally" have a "legal duty under the legal profession" to do something this does not mean that you can fail to do what you should as a public affairs person, so I ask you, Mr. Mansfield,
What assurances can you give me that your public statements are not designed for "merely" for public consuption and are not designed to mislead the court, investigators, or public.
So my next questions, Mr. Mansfield, are these:
So, I ask you Mr. Mansfield,
While you refer to talking about "lawyers", you seem to avoid the real issue as regards We the PEOPLE, to whom you are ultimately accountable and you commit a more deceitful breach, one that is "self-serving" to the CIA law breakers -- you are avoiding a discussion of the correct issue which is -- what legal standard are we talking about? The fictions created by John Yoo & Co, or the actual law, the legal standard, or the Courts?
Just because an Agency lawyer or some Federalist Society or Bushista lawyer has told you something does not make it TRUE.
Just because an Agency lawyer or some Federalist Society or Bushista lawyer has told you something does not make it TRUE.
So my next questions, Mr. Mansfield, are these:
Have you consulted the history books and looked at the Nuremberg Trials in any detail?
Are you aware that a precedent for prosecuting lawyers who failed to enforce the laws of war exists??
Have you heard of "Justice Trials"??
Are you aware that a precedent for prosecuting lawyers who failed to enforce the laws of war exists??
Have you heard of "Justice Trials"??
At this point in time - the time at which you write this arrogant letter, US lawyers have already been alleged to have Made (key word) "frivolous" legal arguments to justify violations of the laws of war; this is important because that alleged frivolous legal argument would attach legal counsel to the underlying war crime. Surely in a serious position such as yours, this would be a prime consideration in your work.
I am more than a bit curious as to WHO you, as a Public Affairs OFFICER, in what is the world's largest intelligence operation, has access to for legal opinion.
I know of the roles of liaision officers - I dealt with that during my refugee case. (In my case, it was Sheila Foster Anthony - the liason from the DoJ to Congress under Reno in 1994, or so it is PRESUMED .. I got some rather different information about that this past year when doing some snooping.) In my case, this became necessary as the DoJ denied me the right to legal remedies of any kind, and thus the case was brought there. A court of law RULED, fairly, in 1997, that indeed the Solicitor General could not be relied on to whom I could make appeal, and the Europa World Book stated that distinctly. Therefore, the legal opinion of the Congressional Liasion was relied on. I would assume you are able to make these types of distinctions yourself/yourselves .. and go for the best legal counsel.
Who do you deal with LEGALLY in the Department of Justice and in Congress?
I know of the roles of liaision officers - I dealt with that during my refugee case. (In my case, it was Sheila Foster Anthony - the liason from the DoJ to Congress under Reno in 1994, or so it is PRESUMED .. I got some rather different information about that this past year when doing some snooping.) In my case, this became necessary as the DoJ denied me the right to legal remedies of any kind, and thus the case was brought there. A court of law RULED, fairly, in 1997, that indeed the Solicitor General could not be relied on to whom I could make appeal, and the Europa World Book stated that distinctly. Therefore, the legal opinion of the Congressional Liasion was relied on. I would assume you are able to make these types of distinctions yourself/yourselves .. and go for the best legal counsel.
One would PRESUME that with techniques like waterboarding, clearly outside the rules of war, some would bring this from the CIA to the attention of the major legal authorities on Geneva, as the United States is a signatory and bound to follow the rule of LAW, no matter what the CIA may or may not like about the provisions until such time as Congress invalidates the treaties.
So, I ask you Mr. Mansfield,
who were these "legal authorities"?
from which branch of government did they hail??
and were they the APPROPRIATE legal authority for the
oversight of the CIA??
from which branch of government did they hail??
and were they the APPROPRIATE legal authority for the
oversight of the CIA??
You see, Mr. Mansfield, with the upshot of the WATERBOARDING - which is CLEARLY an impermissable act -- it seems to me IMPERATIVE that you would bend over backwards to protect the members of the CIA from being subject to legal action being taken against them. It might have made your letter to the New York Times at this late date totally unnecessary.
The CIA wasn't concerned whether their conduct did or did not met the Geneva requirements and you, perhaps -- and the officials and torturers involved -- brought discredit upon your service. The public shouldn't care whether the NYT is "perceived" to do or not do any "service" to the CIA. You've dug yourselves in a hole with your conduct. The New York Times editorial isn't the issue, but the CIA conduct most certainly is. This is precisely what I mean about PROJECTION: rather than face the fact your conduct is shameful and cowardly, you point fingers at everyone else.
You take umbrage that the media has described the (un)lawful questioning of hardened terrorists as “sickening behavior.”
Why do you misconstrue the NYT concerns?
Whether the questioning was "lawful" is spurious; the New York Times is concerned about something more troubling - since the torture is a violation of Geneva, CIA personnel, while required to follow the law, acted ILLEGALLY. It is NOT the sickening behavior they are concerned about at all - but I suspect you know that.
While you are appearing as the public "face" of the Central Intelligence Agency, I hope I can make clear to YOU this: Geneva isn't about protecting prisoners.
No, it is a legitimate LEASH on United States (and other nations') INTERROGATORS. It is a leash and it is legally binding, whether it suits the Agency's fancy or not. It is illegal because waterboarding (and other practices as yet not determined - certain emails and tapes disappeared) is indeed torture and is a violation of Geneva. CIA personnel are REQUIRED TO FOLLOW the RULES. It does not matter one whit whether the US or other nations enforce them; the CIA must enforce them as necessary.
No, it is a legitimate LEASH on United States (and other nations') INTERROGATORS. It is a leash and it is legally binding, whether it suits the Agency's fancy or not. It is illegal because waterboarding (and other practices as yet not determined - certain emails and tapes disappeared) is indeed torture and is a violation of Geneva. CIA personnel are REQUIRED TO FOLLOW the RULES. It does not matter one whit whether the US or other nations enforce them; the CIA must enforce them as necessary.
As you are aware, being so intune with the law, as you state, there is an Italian court finding that the rendition-kidnapping in Italy was -- determined to be illegal.
The CIA fails to discuss rendition, how the prisoners were captured, or whether the prisoners were or were not lawfully moved prior to their torture. They were not.
