Whole lots of them were indicted and charged for the simple crimes not of their own but others. Applying the same standards to ourselves will result in similar indictments and justice.
But the real conspiracies you should care about are the ones that are obvious and boring. It's fun to think of crazy blackmail rings, which likely exist, but the others are more important. Like the government and politicians don't care at all about your health, they only care about maintaining power. The healthcare corporations don't care at all about your health, they only care about profit. Like the tax laws are purposefully so confusing so you have to pay money to TurboTax or someone else.
One thing you need to recognize is there is no difference between you and the Nazis. If you were put back in Germany during that time you would have become a Nazi. You are not special. You are human. Go read the book "ordinary men." And read it from the perspective of the perpetrator, not the victim. You must be aware of your capability to horrific acts and work to make sure it doesn't happen.
There is no accountability, which is itself extremely immoral.
Both of these are worth stopping. Legality did not affect their decisions, neither should it ours, in this case.
Let's write the laws if we have to; this needs corrective action.
I don't think this can be explained just by "individual people being evil". You can't just designate a few scapegoats at the CIA, ruin their lives as punishment, and call the problem solved. There are severely wrong incentives in place.
We do need to write more laws. Or rather, your country does.
What is wrong with this picture?
Legislation happens to be the simplest fix when government agencies are acting horribly wrong. We can do other things, too, but we should start with the tried and true.
The current laws happen to be really bad and are not stopping anyone. I think we can do better. Law doesn't have to be bad and ineffective.
Here's one example of something you can do with the law: declare the CIA dissolved, reallocate the budget.
Is that the best thing we could do? I genuinely can't say. But that would be a law that cannot be ignored.
I think the reason for that is the complete lack of transparency and accountability.
No, that would not address the reasons why accountability in law does not yield accountability in practice. ncmncm is right.
The Executive branch is not going to police itself seriously unless there is huge public outcry. Americans' outrage tends to rise and fall at the tempo of (so-called) news cycles.
Even if parts of the Executive branch wanted to pursue accountability, they would run into a hard wall due to claims of "National Security" by the intelligence community. You see how much it took for Daniel Jones and how much he still didn't get. It would require Executive branch orders at the highest levels that the intelligence community must cooperate, and sustained policing under those highest authorities to deal with the intelligence orgs when they try to find ways to argue and dissemble about complying with what they were ordered to do. Even then, staff might just outright commit illegal acts knowing that there will never really be consequences so long as you can claim "National Security". The Executive branch is not going to want to air any of this dirty laundry.
Colby at the CIA tried to be more forthcoming with Congress and that was part of what led to his being let go from his position as DCI.
The Judicial branch isn't going to take action autonomously.
The greatest likelihood of any accountability would have to come via the Legislative branch (Congress) and public outcry. There is an insufficient level of backbone among the people in power in Congress, because it's incredibly easy to be attacked on this politically when it comes to "National Security". There is this incompetent populist mindset that conflates intent with actions. So if the intelligence community or DoD was trying "defend America against those that would seek to harm her or her people", as many will say, you will find no shortage people who wrap themselves in the flag for political or media exposure benefit and assail any politician that would dare to criticize the intelligence community, DoD, etc. Because if they have our best interests at heart, who cares how they go about their business, right? A vocal segment of the populace will lap this up and say that we should be treating America's enemies even more harshly, not kowtowing to emasculated Liberal desires to give terrorists baskets full of daisies.
Also, it will be virtually impossible to air the incontrovertible proof of wrongdoing in the open. No matter what the level of wrongdoing, the highest priority will be placed on not damaging ongoing intelligence operations, methods, sources, and active personnel. As well, there will be considerations associated with airing information that would embarrass or otherwise cause blowback to cooperating partners, like other countries. So you will end up exposed to reports written by people who have seen the stuff that needs the right clearances, but the conclusions will all be more vague and high level and you will also have congresspeople who "disagree with the report", also in a vague way (either because of the political benefits or because they belong to the tribe that thinks the end justifies the means), thereby reducing its credibility and impact.
There has to be a critical mass in Congress that can survive the political fallout to try to do something about this problem, and there has to be a presidential administration that also badly wants to do something about this even if they get skewered publically. That's unfortunately a very tall order.
And yes, writing this all out depresses and saddens me.
It's worse than that, they have sanctioned ICC prosecutors and there's a law allowing the US to invade The Hague if a war criminal of theirs is under detention or trial there.
It's not even vague, it's blatant hypocrisy and refusal to adhere to international treaties and war crimes definitions ( which the US itself helped shape, but has never applied to itself).
A good first step would be to stand aside and let ICC prosecute, which even actual pardons would not block.
Who would they prosecute? Obama or Bush?
It seems like the implication people have when talking about this is that the CIA agents or CIA directors should be charged.
From my perspective, would they have done any of these illegal activities if they hadn't been given the green-light from the top?
If Bush/Obama said we will let the ICC prosecute, would any CIA agent/director have done it? Probably not.
I'm not disagreeing about prosecution, I'm just wondering where the buck stops and where the true responsibility lies.
Obama halted the torture program, but could be prosecuted for other crimes involving use of drone strikes on civilians, along with underlings who organized or performed the strikes.
Everything done in those programs was explicitly against numerous laws, and everyone involved knew it at the time. I see no reason not to indict every person who participated, at any level, with numerous felonies, along with everyone whose responsibility was to stop it, and didn't. There is way more than enough guilt to go around.
Prosecutions should particularly include CIA executive management.