Editorial: CIA prosecution unfair; suit frivolous

Issue of August 28, 2009 / 8 Elul 5769 Obviously, it doesn’t say anywhere that we must agree with everything done in our names by the President of the United States and his administration — least of all a president and administration we didn’t endorse or vote for. But even after President Obama’s outrageous and unfair pressure on Israel to freeze development in disputed areas, and even after his single payer health care proposal which threatens to further damage our flawed health care system, nothing the Obama administration has yet done has left as sour a taste in our mouth as the newly-reopened possibility that CIA officers could face prosecution for actions they took after Sept. 11, 2001 — actions they took to prevent further attacks on the United States. Attorney General Eric Holder’s appointment of a torture prosecutor to look into possible violations of the law in specific cases is a mistake. So is his strange decision to reverse himself and his own earlier statement that such prosecutions would be unfair in light of guidance that had been offered to CIA officers by the Justice Department under his predecessors. Is it possible that some interrogations exceeded the legal limits set by the government? Yes? Is it possible that some terror suspects had their arms twisted a little too hard, as defined by current guidelines? Yes, again. But we were at war when these incidents occurred — as we still are, by the way — and not every mistake made in a time of war is worthy of prosecution. Some are, without a doubt. These are not. It will serve no useful purpose to prosecute Americans who beat up on terrorists to gain information that virtually everyone agrees helped prevent additional attacks. Such prosecutions will serve only as a disincentive to CIA officers and others on the front lines to take the steps they must in order to prevent future attacks.

Lawrence board of ed should countersue

A federal judge’s decision has proved once again, as if repetition were really required, that words matter. As we reported several weeks ago, a small group of Lawrence school district parents sought an injunction against the plan to close The Number Six School. They filed a federal civil rights lawsuit, accused the District 15 trustees of running an Orthodox conspiracy, and making Orthodox Judaism the de-facto religion of the school district. Justice Joanna Seybert tossed the suit so far out of court in Central Islip it must have landed in Atlantic Beach, ending up right where it started. One word in the judge’s decision that really mattered is the word “frivolous.” As if the utterly disdainful tone the judge took in her decision were not enough, that word, “frivolous,” we believe, may give the district the legal grounds needed to go back to court and ask to recover the significant cost of defending against the lawsuit. We strongly encourage the district to do so. Related: Editorial