-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
JEFFREY BROWN:The Justice Department has closed the door on bringing any criminal charges in connection with interrogations of terror suspects by the CIA.
Margaret Warner has the story.
MARGARET WARNER:Late yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder1 announced no one would be prosecuted2 in the last two outstanding cases involving the deaths of CIA detainees after 9/11.
His statement said, "The admissible evidence wouldn't be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt."
Three years ago, Holder launched a probe into whether any CIA personnel in secret overseas prisons exceeded the harsh interrogation techniques approved by the Justice Department in 2002 and in 2005.
The final two cases involved the 2002 death in Afghanistan of a suspected al-Qaida figure in an agency prison near Bagram Air Base and the 2003 death in Iraq of an Abu Ghraib prisoner during interrogation by CIA officers. A military autopsy3 ruled that a homicide.
The American Civil Liberties Union called Holder's decision nothing short of a scandal. Holder noted4 the larger issues around torture still aren't resolved, saying, "Our inquiry5 doesn't resolve broader questions regarding the propriety6 of the examined conduct."
And, Ken, welcome to the program.
KEN DILANIAN, The Los Angeles Times:Thank you.
MARGARET WARNER:So what's behind this decision on Eric Holder's part?
KEN DILANIAN:Well, a lot about this remains8 secret. This is a secret investigation9 of a classified operation.
But what we know is that the Justice Department is saying they just couldn't make a case here. They're not say no crime was committed. And the other thing that it's important to understand about this is that these cases were not part of the enhanced interrogation technique program that the CIA carried out.
That conduct had already been investigated. No charges were filed. And Holder had decided10 he wasn't going to hold anyone accountable for things they did pursuant to Justice Department legal opinions.
So these were two cases in war zones where the allegations were the conduct exceeded the boundaries of what was permissible11.
MARGARET WARNER:Even under those harsh interrogation techniques about which we heard and debated so much back when they came to light.
So when he said the evidence wasn't admissible or there wasn't enough admissible evidence to sustain a conviction, what does he mean? I mean, what was wrong with the evidence they had?
KEN DILANIAN:Well, there's a lot of—you can read between the lines of the statement. He talked about jurisdictional12 issues, statute13 of limitations. He said these crimes occurred nine or 10 years ago or these—there were no crimes—alleged14 crimes.
There is also—in the case of Jamadi, who died at Abu Ghraib in 2003, for example, in that case, it is alleged that Navy SEALs beat him first before he was transferred to the custody15 of a CIA interrogator16. And it's alleged—and the reporting is that that interrogator may not have actually beaten him, but he was strung up in a way with broken ribs17 that causes death.
And there's a lot of question about who had custody when, and they just weren't able to make the case.
MARGARET WARNER:So you mean even—that is the case in which the military autopsy said it was a homicide, but you are saying when you are prosecutor18 and you are trying to make the case, it was hard to know who was really responsible for the fatal injuries?
KEN DILANIAN:That appears to be how it shook out.
MARGARET WARNER:Now, how did these two cases—well, first of all, does this close the book? Are these the last of the cases that the Justice Department was looking at?
KEN DILANIAN:It does.
It closes the book on the criminal investigation. Now, Senate Democrats19 have done an investigation of the interrogation program that remains classified. There may be something, a release on that some time this year.
That looks at the larger program and the techniques, including water-boarding and stress positions. But in terms of criminal culpability20, this ends it.
MARGARET WARNER:And what was it about these two particular cases that made them survive all the other vetting21 and reviews that had gone on?
KEN DILANIAN:Well, I mean, there were deaths. In the one case, the death was ruled a homicide. You know, there were just so many obvious things that cried out for investigation here.
There was no legal authorization22 for what took place with these two men. So, I think that explains why. And the cases had been examined previously23 by previous Justice Department prosecutors24 and no evidence was found to charge a crime in that case either.
MARGARET WARNER:Now, does the CIA still have an interrogation program?
KEN DILANIAN:No.
In fact, the CIA will tell you they are out of the interrogation and detention25 business. And very few terrorism suspects are held who are not captured on the battlefield these days. There was one case of a person who was held on a Navy ship for a few months and then transferred to charge criminally in court in New York.
But in a case where there is going to be end up being a federal criminal charge, they really don't have a place to put people since they're not going to put people in Guantanamo prison.
MARGARET WARNER:So, for instance, if they capture somebody in, say, Afghanistan, where the U.S. is still in an active theater, who—and they want to interrogate26 him—who does the interrogation?
KEN DILANIAN:Well, in that case, it's the military. And they go to Bagram in cooperation with the Afghans. So that's not an issue.
But in terms of capturing someone in Yemen or Somalia, that is where the problem lies. And I think what is happening largely is that the Yemeni government is capturing and interrogating27 suspects that we're interested in.
MARGARET WARNER:Now, what has been the reaction in the intelligence community and from the agency?
KEN DILANIAN:You know, a lot of satisfaction expressed.
People were very frustrated28 that these investigations29 went forward under the Obama administration. There was a feeling that this stuff had already been investigated, we were acting30 pursuant to trying to protect the American people, so a lot of gratification expressed that no charges were filed.
MARGARET WARNER:And Petraeus issued a statement, did he not?
KEN DILANIAN:It was a pretty careful statement, I thought.
But Panetta was actually more forward-leaning, Leon Panetta, the previous CIA director...
KEN DILANIAN:... in announcing the last—that no charges were filed last year in the other 100 cases.
Petraeus praised people for cooperating with the investigation.
MARGARET WARNER:And left it at that.
KEN DILANIAN:Yes.
MARGARET WARNER:Well, Ken Dilanian from The Los Angeles Times, thank you.
KEN DILANIAN:Thanks for having me.
点击收听单词发音
1 holder | |
n.持有者,占有者;(台,架等)支持物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 prosecuted | |
a.被起诉的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 autopsy | |
n.尸体解剖;尸检 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 noted | |
adj.著名的,知名的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 inquiry | |
n.打听,询问,调查,查问 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 propriety | |
n.正当行为;正当;适当 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 ken | |
n.视野,知识领域 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 remains | |
n.剩余物,残留物;遗体,遗迹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 investigation | |
n.调查,调查研究 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 decided | |
adj.决定了的,坚决的;明显的,明确的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 permissible | |
adj.可允许的,许可的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 jurisdictional | |
adj. 司法权的,裁决权的,管辖权的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 statute | |
n.成文法,法令,法规;章程,规则,条例 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 alleged | |
a.被指控的,嫌疑的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 custody | |
n.监护,照看,羁押,拘留 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 interrogator | |
n.讯问者;审问者;质问者;询问器 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 ribs | |
n.肋骨( rib的名词复数 );(船或屋顶等的)肋拱;肋骨状的东西;(织物的)凸条花纹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 prosecutor | |
n.起诉人;检察官,公诉人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 democrats | |
n.民主主义者,民主人士( democrat的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 culpability | |
n.苛责,有罪 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 vetting | |
n.数据检查[核对,核实]v.审查(某人过去的记录、资格等)( vet的现在分词 );调查;检查;诊疗 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 authorization | |
n.授权,委任状 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 previously | |
adv.以前,先前(地) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 prosecutors | |
检举人( prosecutor的名词复数 ); 告发人; 起诉人; 公诉人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 detention | |
n.滞留,停留;拘留,扣留;(教育)留下 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 interrogate | |
vt.讯问,审问,盘问 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 interrogating | |
n.询问技术v.询问( interrogate的现在分词 );审问;(在计算机或其他机器上)查询 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 frustrated | |
adj.挫败的,失意的,泄气的v.使不成功( frustrate的过去式和过去分词 );挫败;使受挫折;令人沮丧 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 investigations | |
(正式的)调查( investigation的名词复数 ); 侦查; 科学研究; 学术研究 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 acting | |
n.演戏,行为,假装;adj.代理的,临时的,演出用的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 defense | |
n.防御,保卫;[pl.]防务工事;辩护,答辩 | |
参考例句: |
|
|