The lead article in today’s New York times, “U.S. Jury Aquits Former Detainee of Most Charges,” represents a poor test case for trying terrorists in civilian court due to its unique circumstances. The jury acquitted Adhmed Ghailani of 280 charges of conspiracy and murder in the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.

The case is unique because the operative was held for five years in a C.I.A. “black site,” a secret prison in Europe. Because of this factor, the confessed name of a witness during that time led to a dismissal of his testimony by the judge, a key element in the case.

It is also significant to note that the one charge endorsed by the jury can, in itself, lead to a sentence of 20 years to life in prison. However, because this was one of the first Guantanamo based cases tried in federal court, critics of the process are using it to fan up dissension about the policy.

Even so, and perhaps because of the final verdicts, many, including the judge, are using the decision to show the impartiality of the American justice system. Perhaps nowhere else in the world could a perpetrator come to the “shadow” of the former World Trade Center and receive a similar ruling.

The lead story in The New York Times this morning, “Judge Prohibits Key U.S. Witness in Terror Trial,” shows that the United States really is a place where the rule of law reigns supreme. Ahmed Ghailani, accused of blowing up a U.S. embassy in East Africa in 1998, won a ruling from the judge regarding the inadmissibility of testimony from a witnes whose existence was revealed during torture.

Mr. Ghailani spent five years at a dark site, a prison overseas run by the C.I.A., when he provided the name of the person who sold him the TNT for his action. But the judge yesterday ruled that the Fifth Amendment mandated that any evidence derived while he was there was tainted due to violation of his rights.

The ruling immediately called into question President Obama’s policy of trying current Guantanamo detainees in federal court instead of a military tribunal where the rules of evidence are less strict. But Eric Holder retorted that hundreds of terrorism subjects have been convicted in civilian court, and that this was just one ruling by one judge.

The point may be moot in any case. The judge noted that the accused would not go free even if he were acquitted due to his status as an enemy combatant.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Court Dismisses a Case Asserting Torture by C.I.A.,” illustrates the perpetual conflict between the requirements of democratic, civil society and the need to protect ourselves from enemies who have no such limitations.

The article describes a 6-5 ruling by a federal appeals court asserting that alleged victims of C.I.A. torture in overseas prisons had no right to bring lawsuits over the matter. The Obama administration sided with the C.I.A. in the case.

Though I fundamentally disagree with the ruling — you always have to watch out for infringements of basic rights — it does have that element of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. The argument goes that there are some limits to our rights, for example, the right of free speech does not protect people from situations that can cause imminent physical danger — you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.

We have a similar situation in this case. The need for national security to protect all Americans may circumscribe the right to a jury trial in our courts in certain situations. Counterterrorism in certain cases mandates some limits of civilian rights.

In this case, a Boeing subsidiary was accused of transporting prisoners overseas where they were tortured. The A.C.L.U. filed the case on behalf of the prisoners.

Of course, an appeal to the Supreme Court is anticipated, but I think the ruling will be upheld.

The lead story in The New York Times this morning is titled, “Abuse Issue Puts the Justice Dept. and C.I.A. at Odds.” The article describes a series of contentious debates between the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department over the abuse of detainees after 9/11.

The article starts by describing a visit by the chief lawyer of the C.I.A.  in an unsuccessful attempt to persuade aides at the Justice Department to forego an investigation. The C.I.A. told the Justice Department that the transgressions had already been reviewed by prosecutors from the Bush White House, and, in their view, it was either impossible or unlikely to prove anything in a court of law. Furthermore, the C.I.A. noted that any inappropriate actions had been handled internally.

In my opinion, these conflicts primarily represent an attempt by each institution to defend its territory. Eric Holder at Justice has been sworn in to defend the law of the land, and he can’t just ignore actions that go beyond even the brutality allowed under the Bush administration. Leon Panetta, on the other hand, is trying to boost the morale at the C.I.A. and wants to avoid a long drawn-out investigation.

Both attempts may be well intentioned, but we need to go beyond the squabbling to determine what’s best for the country. I think a good compromise has already been struck. The prosecutor selected has already been investigating the erasure of tapes showing the interrogations so he won’t be starting from square one. This will shorten the investigation. In addition, the charge given to the prosecutor involves specific transgressions of guidelines from the Bush administration, not an investigation of those guidelines themselves.

Compare it to a band-aid over a wound. The band-aid (interrogations) may have been necessary at the time, but afterwards, the best course of action is to take off the band-aid quickly. This investigation should do just that.

The lead story in the New York Times this morning (two-column headline) is titled, “Investigation is Ordered Into C.I.A. Abuse Charges.” It describes the decision by Attorney General Eric Holder yesterday to name a federal prosecutor to look into criminal wrongdoing by the C.I.A. Mr. Holder’s directive coincides with the release yesterday of a 2004 report by the Inspector General of the C.I.A. and a recommendation to investigate by the Justice Department’s ethics department.

The article goes on to describe abuse listed in the 2004 report, some of it extremely shocking. It includes threats against a prisoner’s family, blowing cigar smoke into a detainee’s face until he vomits, intimidation with a power drill after stripping a prisoner naked, and more. 

In my opinion, these facts gave Attorney General Eric Holder no alternative. Any decent-thinking American must be shocked at these tactics, and the Attorney General’s first responsibility is to uphold the law of the land.

Mr. Holder was very wise in choosing John H. Durham as federal prosecutor. He had already been looking into the erasure of interrogation tapes by the C.I.A. and so is quite familiar with the subject and will be able to conclude the initial inquiry in a timely manner.

I just hope that the junior officers don’t end up as scapegoats as they did during Abu Ghraib. It was the directives of senior officials and their attitude of anything goes that created the atmosphere in which these abuses occurred.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Justice Report Advises Pursuit of Abuse Cases.” It describes a new report by Justice Department’s Ethics Office, based on over five years of research, about prisoner abuse by the Central Intelligence Agency in the aftermath of 9/11. The abuse includes the death of detainees and tactics such as threatening them with a power drill and mock executions.

The advice coincides with the release expected today of a 2004 report by the C.I.A.’s Inspector General on the same topic. It seems to make it all but certain that Attorney General Eric Holder will decide to pursue a criminal investigation of the matter.

In my opinion, these matters are painful for the country to endure, but we really have no alternative. The report by the Ethics Office took over five years to complete, but the conclusions are inescapable. Our country is organized in such a way that when serious wrongdoing occurs, there are organizations specially designed to look into it. These organizations are non-partisan and filled with staff committed to finding out the truth. Even the President can’t impede their function.

In a way, this is a good thing and speaks volumes about the inherent goodness of our nation. Man, by his very nature, will transgress, but the Framers knew that, and the balance of powers is only one of the many dynamics we have created to address this tendency. I know President Obama wants to move forward, and his sentiment is well-intentioned, but some things are too important to “brush under the carpet.”

The lead story in today’s New York Times is titled, “U.S. Shifts, Giving Detainees’ Names to the Red Cross.” It describes a new policy by the Pentagon to notify the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) about the names of new prisoners in its Secret Operations camps. These are two camps, one each in Iraq and Afghanistan, that were the last holdouts from reversals of Bush administration policy into a more open situation in accordance with international law.

The change in policy represents one of a number of developments this week related to C.I.A. practices. The C.I.A. will be releasing a 2004 report by its Inspector General on the Agency’s interrogation program. The report is highly critical and reportedly includes instances of threatening prisoners by using a power drill and mock executions. An additional development will be an expected decision by Attorney General Eric Holder about appointing a criminal prosecutor to investigate interrogations that occurred after 9/11.

In my opinion, all these events will be painful for the United States as a country to endure, primarily because of the high ideals and standards we all hold. But they are absolutely necessary to prevent future transgressions. Only by exposing our actions to world opinion can we achieve the catharsis required to make them more unlikely in the future. If there is no punitive action, future administrations under stressful situations may be tempted to take the same actions, and maybe even more.

So, yes, it is important for us to move forward as President Obama wishes, but we also have an obligation to pursue some of the difficult admissions that will occur this week.

The lead story in today’s New York Times is titled, “Outsiders Hired as C.I.A. Planned to Kill Jihadists.” It describes the use of the Blackwater firm in a C.I.A. program to hunt down and kill senior members of Al Qaeda. According to the article, this is the major reason that the C.I.A.’s director, Leon Panetta, revealed the program to the Congressional Intelligence Committees. According to prior accounts, former Vice President, Dick Cheney, specifically ordered the C.I.A. not to do so.

The article describes the project as a targeted killing program and raises major issues with hiring an outside organization, including legal ramifications and accountability. The C.I.A. had been banned from carrying out assassinations by an executive order by then-President Gerald Ford, but the Bush administration tried to skirt the ban by defining Al Qaeda operatives as soldiers in a war against the United States.

In my opinion, this revelation only adds to the mounting evidence piled up against the Bush administration about its illegal seizure of authority in violation of the Constitution and the balance of powers it enumerated. How ironic that the current protestors against healthcare rail about the Constitution when it was ultimately their favorite President who was really in violation.

This story will continue to develop as The New York Times continues its investigation. Thank God for a free press as the true bulwark protecting our democracy.

The lead story in today’s New York Times is titled, “After 9/11, C.I.A. had Plan to Kill Qaeda’s Leaders.” It describes plans to assassinate Al Qaeda leaders through small paramilitary teams of operatives. The program, which took about 24 hours to leak, was first publicized as a secret operation that Dick Cheney had commanded the C.I.A. to keep secret from Congress.

According to the article, the program was never implemented, even though authority for it to proceed was renewed on a yearly basis. In addition, the concealment of the program from Congress specifically violated the process of informing Senate and House Oversight Committees. These committees were specifically formed to curtual previous excesses by the C.I.A.

Unlike the movies, the C.I.A. assassination teams posed some significant logistical problems. For example, where do you base the teams? Are they just sitting around on alert? How do you select the personnel so that other operations are not jeopardized?

In reality, the C.I.A. is not the all-knowing, cloak and dagger, efficient machine portrayed in the movies. It’s inability to stop the 9/11 attacks in the first place should offer clear evidence of that fact. For example, the bureaucratic limitations of any large government agency plague the C.I.A. as well.

Cheney’s commands to the C.I.A. are another matter. He has no legislative, executive or constitutional authority to order anyone to do anything. His sole duty, to preside over the Senate, precludes his giving commands to any agency. And these commands should represent the last straw of toleration for any of his nefarious acts.

Who does Cheney think he is? It’s time for Eric Holder to look into the matter.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “In Adopting Harsh Tactics, No Inquiry Into Past Use.” An investigative piece, it goes into great details about the people and events surrounding the implementation of torture by the United States government.

The article names names and includes a series of photos of the players in the continuation with photos of them all. It notes how easy it would have been to investigate the history of these methods when they were applied by the Chinese Communist government in the 50s, and their lack of effectiveness.

Apparently, the people who approved the torture, or were in a position to object, but failed to do so, were lulled into complacency by the use of these methods to train U.S. soldiers in the event of capture. The training program, known as SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape), did not address how effective the results would be or the history of their use.

The history of waterboarding, in fact, was used by the Spanish Inquisition, and was even on display in the genocide museum in Cambodia to describe the methods of Pol Pot.

Once again the Bush administration failed to conduct the analysis and deep background required before making such a momentous decision. They were misled by theories from psychologists and other doctors who had never witnessed the horror of such an interrogation on purpose.

 The only proper response to these new revelations is to demand a thorough, non-partisan investigation. Our country’s dignity and self-worth demand it.