WAPO: Worried CIA Officers Buy Legal Insurance. The year was 2006.

[chill_wind]

I remembered reading this almost 3 years ago, never forgot its implications even at that time... and found it again today.

It says everything about the slippery "just following orders defense", when you know in advance you are doing something for which you know there is no plausible defense.

Worried CIA Officers Buy Legal Insurance
Plans Fund Defense In Anti-Terror Cases
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 11, 2006; A01

CIA counterterrorism officers have signed up in growing numbers for a government-reimbursed, private insurance plan that would pay their civil judgments and legal expenses if they are sued or charged with criminal wrongdoing, according to current and former intelligence officials and others with knowledge of the program.

The new enrollments reflect heightened anxiety at the CIA that officers may be vulnerable to accusations they were involved in abuse, torture, human rights violations and other misconduct, including wrongdoing related to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. They worry that they will not have Justice Department representation in court or congressional inquiries, the officials said.

The anxieties stem partly from public controversy about a system of secret CIA prisons in which detainees were subjected to harsh interrogation methods, including temperature extremes and simulated drowning. The White House contends the methods were legal, but some CIA officers have worried privately that they may have violated international law or domestic criminal statutes.

full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091001286_pf.html

[aquart]

1. You know, stress and anxiety cause illness.

I'd feel awful if some torturers were suffering the agonies of acid reflux.

[chill_wind]

3. Torture first. Fret about the kids' college savings as an afterthought.

You got the biggest law defense firm in the world to fix it later.

A recently retired CIA officer who said he had not bought insurance contended that "if an individual does get sued in the course of their official duties, then you get the biggest law firm in the world to step in" -- the Justice Department. Justice regulations allow defending federal workers if the conduct is within the scope of an employee's job and doing so is in the government's "interest."

[Solly Mack]

2. K&R

[chill_wind]

4. Thnx..

[Solly Mack]

5. I'm glad to see the reminder

I was thinking about including that part of it in my post...but damn, there's just so much info out there to show the CIA knew their actions were illegal. It's just after-the-fact excuses now. Whatever helps people feel better about the US government torturing people.

[chill_wind]

6. Torture Legal Insurance. Talk about cheap perks!

"The insurance, costing about $300 a year, would pay as much as $200,000 toward legal expenses and $1 million in civil judgments. Since the late 1990s, the CIA's senior managers have been eligible for reimbursement of half the insurance premium."

Where can I buy insurance in the U.S. of ANY KIND for ANYTHING that cheap?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Why don't they just flee to Argentina like their predecessors?

[Duer 157099]

8. Well perhaps this is the missing link

Maybe this explains Obama's decision to not prosecute them.

Maybe AIG holds those policies, and so effectively the government would be paying for the defense of these guys?

[chill_wind]

9. It explains that they feared actual consequences from Democrats after 2006

See those quotes within the article.

re: policies

"The insurance policies were bought from Arlington-based Wright and Co., a subsidiary of the private Special Agents Mutual Benefit Association created by former FBI officials."

[Duer 157099]

10. I know. My post was just being silly

too much mind-bending news to deal with today. I needed some ironic comic relief.

[chill_wind]

11. Sorry to misread...

I hear you. :hi:

[slipslidingaway]

12. K&R Do you remember the discussion of immunity in the MCA...

I do not remember the outcome and I'm too lazy at the moment to search.

Anyone???

[chill_wind]

13. Bush actually tried to get it. Even a few Republicans gagged at the thought.

From the above article"

"Bush last week called for Congress to approve legislation drafted by the White House that would exempt CIA officers and other federal civilian officials from prosecution for humiliating and degrading terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. Its wording would keep prosecutors or courts from considering a wider definition of actions that constitute torture.

Bush also asked Congress to bar federal courts from considering lawsuits by detainees who were in CIA or military custody that allege violations of international treaties and laws governing treatment of detainees.

The proposals have won mixed reviews in the Senate, where they are generally opposed by Democrats and a group of dissident Republicans. The proposals were deliberately omitted, for example, from competing legislation circulated last week by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.)."

Don't know what legislation they were referring to in the article at the time.

[slipslidingaway]

14. Thanks, I'm not sure where it ended up, except that...

both my Dem Senators voted for the bill.

:(

[rug]

15. No, this thread should not sink.

[chill_wind]

16. Oh, I think it is destined to do exactly that, because

it messes up a few of the perfect cut and dried theorems about the hapless good faith of the poor honorable victims at the good old CIA, just doing their jobs and all..

[Lilith Velkor]

17. Well well well

How 'bout that.

[chill_wind]

18. And much more related here:

"Some (obviously) forgotten context regarding the release of the additional torture memos"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5473057#top

[dgibby]

19. Hope you don't mind. I just sent this to Rachel.

[chill_wind]

20. Excellent. Thank you for that.

We are drowning in a certain kind of semi-collective amnesia here.

The surprise of so many over the recently released Red Cross report is only another very small example of how much has been shoved away from consciousness over the last 5-6 years.

Mainstream News. **2004**

Military doctors allegedly collaborated in prison torture
Bioethicist charges healers violated ethics
and human rights at Iraq's Abu Ghraib


updated 4:46 p.m. ET, Fri., Aug 20, 2004
LONDON - Doctors working for the U.S. military in Iraq collaborated with interrogators in the abuse of detainees at Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib prison, profoundly breaching medical ethics and human rights, a bioethicist charges in The Lancet medical journal.

In a scathing analysis of the behavior of military doctors, nurses and medics, University of Minnesota professor Steven Miles calls for a reform of military medicine and an official investigation into the role played by physicians and other medical staff in the torture scandal.

He cites evidence that doctors or medics falsified death certificates to cover up homicides, hid evidence of beatings and revived a prisoner so he could be further tortured. No reports of abuses were initiated by medical personnel until the official investigation into Abu Ghraib began, he found.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5761936

I remember that. I voted for and actively supported President Obama, but nothing has happened to impair my memory and my revulsion over realities like these. It made me ill then. It makes me ill now.

[chill_wind]

21. In the words of The Rude One

"8. The repetitious nature of the memos, reiterating the same things are a-okay, means that people in the CIA and elsewhere were shitting themselves over possible prosecution and wanted to be reassured that their asses were covered."

And still they knew it was bullshit advice. Their lack of "good faith" is what made them turn from the bullshit advice to extra legal insurance precautions.