Torture Tapes
Looks like the cat is out of the bag and the “new family jewels” were destroyed. What am I talking about? Today’s revelation in the NY Times that, “the Central Intelligence Agency in 2005 destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two Qaeda operatives in the agency’s custody, a step it took in the midst of Congressional and legal scrutiny about its secret detention program, according to current and former government officials.”
During the Church Committee investigation of CIA misdeeds in 1975-76, “family jewels” was the euphemism for the list of unsavory secret activities–e.g., assassination, domestic spying, etc.–carried out by CIA officers that then CIA Director, William Colby, handed over to Congress. Those “jewels” tarnished the Agency’s reputation and its officers. Well, here we go again.The news of the destroyed tapes is not on par with the “family jewels” of the seventies. But it does reinforce the “24? image of CIA activities that the average layman (or woman) believes to be true. It’s not just Jack Bauer torturing folks to save America.
The truth on this will come out assuming that the Democrats press the investigation. At initial glance the CIA is hiding behind the lamest of excuses:
General Hayden’s statement said that the tapes posed a “serious security risk” and that if they had become public they would have exposed C.I.A. officials “and their families to retaliation from Al Qaeda and its sympathizers.”
I do not dispute the possibility of retaliation by Al Qaeda against an undercover officer. In fact, it happened to Valerie Plame Wilson, but her identity was exposed by the Bush Administration. Then there is the question of tradecraft. Did the CIA officers participating in the interrogation/torture sessions allow themselves to be filmed so that they could be easily identified? I am skeptical. When the truth comes out I think we are likely to discover the people doing the questioning were contractors, not undercover Agency officers.
But let’s assume for a moment that undercover CIA officers actually were filmed. Are you telling me that CIA has not figured out how to edit videotapes and cover the faces and voices of their personnel? I’m sure there is a 14 year old computer geek out there somewhere with a MacBook Pro who is ready and willing to help the CIA do the necessary editing to protect their personnel. The Hayden excuse does not pass the bullshit test.
But anyway, according to the CIA, there wasn’t anything worth seeing. The tapes are no longer of any value.
Let’s be clear why these were destroyed–the chief of the Operations Division, Jose Rodriguez, understood that this was video evidence of torture. It was not the exposure of clandestine identities that had him fretting. It was the fear that CIA officers and contractors could be standing before a tribunal in the Hague trying to explain why the images of torture were not torture.
Then there is the potential embarrassment from showing that these extreme interrogation measures did not produce any intelligence of significance. If, for example, one of the tortured victims had spilled the beans about an impending attack on the White House or the financial towers of New York City you can be sure that evidence would be preserved and shared. At least those involved in this tawdry affair could justify violating international conventions by demonstrating that “lives were saved”. But that did not happen.
Jose Rodriguez will not be the only one walking the public plank on this issue. In fact, he did not undertake this mission without the permission or direction from higher ups. And when you are the Deputy Director of Operations, there are not a lot of people above you. Prominent names include George Tenet, John McLaughlin, Porter Goss, and John Rizzo. Darrel Plant has an insightful piece giving some important background on Rizzo, the acting CIA General Counsel.
Other intelligence officers likely to be asked tough questions include Cofer Black (now a senior official with Blackwater) and Ambassador Henry “Hank” Crumpton, who was Cofer’s deputy and subsequently served as the Coordinator for Counter Terrorism at State Department.
Be assured that lawyers in Washington are celebrating this as a holiday gift. I am sure many CIA officers will get a chance to use the insurance policies they bought, which helps defray legal expenses. I doubt that Jose Rodriguez will be a willing scapegoat. In fact, I would not be surprised if he kept some information back that would help exonerate him just in case this very contingency arose.
Happy Holidays.
It is always easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission.
December 7, 2007 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's even easier to stonewall and forget--just look at the Iran-Contra hearings.
December 7, 2007 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
One cannot have a true democracy when there exists a secret army. How did the CIA slip from intelligence gathering to being an extra-legal military force?
If we assume that we need such a force then what is wrong with using the appropriate army and navy units? There is only one possible reason that this isn't done - what is to be done is in violation of the law.
Is the CIA beyond governance? This was true of the FBI under Hoover. He intimidated those who might stand in his way. The results weren't pretty. Is the same thing true of the CIA? Is this why there is never any meaningful reform? Do we even need a separate CIA anymore? Couldn't its intelligence gathering activities be combined with other agencies like the NSA?
It seems that the lack of reform is because no one is willing or able to eliminate the secret army.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
December 7, 2007 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are levels of security clearance in the government beyond even the President. The thinking is that elected officials come and go, and they can leak sensitive information with impunity. Sadly, there is some truth to this. Leaks are very difficult to pin down, and the culprits can always slip the noose.
No one wants to take on this issue, because those who do end up with serious health problems. Study the mysterious death of former director William Colby and you'll see what I mean.
December 7, 2007 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those clandestine secret types sure wait a long time to kill off their opponents.
Colby died **21 Years** after leaving the CIA.
Oy.
December 7, 2007 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, while he was working on a book that was supposedly going to reveal more in-depth CIA shenanigans. After finding his body in the river, investigators found a half-eaten plate of food and wine on his dinner table. How many people do you know that just drop everything in mid-meal to go for a canoe ride after dark?
December 8, 2007 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I remember the Maxwell Smart epic, "Get Smart" very well. Some things are so secret those who know them have to be killed immediately.
Hoppy in Sacramento
December 7, 2007 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Around 1970, while working in a rather secretive Navy facility (NAVCOSSACT), I had holiday gifts made up for friends in the military and intelligence. They were neatly boxed sans-serif rubber stamps, looking like any of a multitude of security markings, but reading DESTROY BEFORE READING.
They brought much happiness to windowless bunkers. :-)
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
I remember once having worked about 48 hours straight, and, walking up a ramp in the middle of the night, felt as if I was trapped in a bad science fiction movie, in the headquarters of the Galactic Overlord.
When I realized I actually was in the basement of the Pentagon, my reality seemed to match my perceptions.
December 7, 2007 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, It seems to me that Hayden is referring to retaliation generally for torturing detainees rather than exposure of individual agents. Either way, the excuse for destroying evidence is beyond lame. Everyone knows what the CIA’s enhanced interrogation involves and al Qaeda knows more than we do, I imagine. Besides, if Al Qaeda is aware of a CIA agent’s identity and has an opportunity to strike, they would not need any reason to do so. The CIA was co-opted with this administration, along with Justice and DoD and this is all part and parcel of the redacting of the rule of law. We are at WAR! Therefore, El Presidente can do whatever he wants, na-na-na-na-na.
The Butch administration has misplaced evidence on a scale Nixon could not conceive of. In the case of the CIA, they have admitted to destroying more than these two tapes including Padilla’s (and admitted that they have tapes they have been denying having, which will cost them a new trial for Zacharias Moussaoui). Rockefeller and Harmon on the Intel Committee (charged with overseeing Intel) have affirmed that they were told of the plans to destroy these various torture tapes and both wrote sternly worded letters to the CIA, which were ignored. Hey, what can they do? They’re only elected congress people empowered to check the Executive from lawbreaking and usurpation of power.
Then there is the clandestine ops involving funding and managing Sunni terrorist groups to fight against Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iran, which are acts of war and, I’m sure, have been admitted to Rockefeller and other Dems in Congress. I'm immune to being shocked by what the WH and Republicans do but I have to conclude that the Democrats are just as liable. You have worked for the CIA Larry, are they above the law along with the President?
December 7, 2007 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, the CIA is not and should not be above the law. Engaging in torture is counterproductive, not to mention a moral stain on the Agency and this country.
December 7, 2007 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
the CIA is not and should not be above the law
Larry, your second phrase is absolutely true, your first, sadly, is not.
How does a Congress like ours--motivated primarily by political self-preservation and, with a few exceptions, uninterested in the details of governing and maybe even unqualified for the job of governing--effectively keep an organization like the CIA, shielded as it is by the twin cloaks of secrecy and bureaucracy, under the law?
December 8, 2007 6:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
One interesting proposal, in Foreign Affairs came from Paul Pillar, who was National Intelligence Officer for the Middle East from 2000-2005. Pillar is happy neither with the White House nor Congress.
Not all classified programs are so secret that they are briefed, often with no notes or documents kept, to the relevant "Big 8" members. Pillar said that there was no problem providing, for example, most NIEs to legislators, presumably on the committees where they would be briefed on them anyway. He said that he was rarely asked for them, and his impression, in most cases, was that they were only skimmed or only the first few pages were read.
His idea draws from some respected Congressional organizations, especially GAO, but also CBO, CRS, and, when extant, OTA. Pillar proposes that a congressional intelligence oversight office be set up, and staffed with fully cleared and qualified specialists, whose job it is to evaluate and report to Congress -- to whom they are responsible. He didn't see this as needing to be a terribly large office, certainly not the size of GAO.
Remember that Congressmen are most often lawyers. While there are exceptions, most do not have a technical background, or much international relations experience before assuming office. Taking one expensive example, which doesn't have the kind of baggage as torture, there are two groups of technical opinion on how to build the next generation of certain kinds of SIGINT (signals intelligence, the stuff NSA does and is definitely not limited to conversations). Our current approach is to use large satellites with extensive capabilities, such as what have been under the code name TRUMPET. A different approach is to use "constellations" of "microsatellites" that cooperate as a group. There are good arguments in both directions. How does Congress get independent advice?
If I may draw from another field, a number of physician groups are no longer letting pharmaceutical company salesmen present directly to them. Instead, the pharmaceutical representatives meet with clinical pharmacists, highly qualified in drug evaluation and also knowing what the practice (or hospital group) does. It is the employee of the doctors that briefs them, not someone with a conflict of interest.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 9, 2007 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing is going to come out in any Congressional investigation. Congress is not trusted by any intelligence agency. It's full of leaks and political agendas that have nothing to do with security, so they get watered-down testimony.
Intelligence information is destroyed on a daily basis for a variety of reasons, without Congressional knowledge or approval. The fake concern being exhibited here is appalling. This might be the biggest non-story of the year. Nothing is going to happen except political posturing, which we've all had our fill of. I'm already yawning over this one.
December 7, 2007 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt that any of us here will mind if you just go to sleep. I'm sure we can handle this without you. Nitey, nite.
Hoppy in Sacramento
December 7, 2007 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
news report:
The Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, John Rockefeller, called for a thorough investigation into the tapes and their destruction.
Is there a "Senator Church" on the committee?
U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Democrats
John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virgin
Dianne Feinstein, California
Ron Wyden, Oregon
Evan Bayh, Indiana
Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland
Russell D. Feingold, Wisconsin
Bill Nelson, Florida
Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island
Republicans
Christopher S. Bond, Missouri
John Warner, Virginia
Chuck Hagel, Nebraska
Saxby Chambliss, Georgia
Orrin Hatch, Utah
Olympia J. Snowe, Maine
Richard Burr, North Carolina
ecotourism
WeGoEco.com
December 7, 2007 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sheldon Whitehouse is on the Committee!
Watch his speech from Friday in two parts:
And check out this long post and commentary on that.
December 8, 2007 5:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rockefeller is frikkin useless.
December 8, 2007 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don Bacon asked if there was a Frank Church on this committee. The Dems are mainly the same old tired corporate shills, but Chuck Hagel is burning more bridges than Sherman on his way out of the Senate. He's pissed and his GOP history gives him some cover. We'll see how much. I foresee Hagel being trashed by the neocon media machine for asking too many good questions.
December 8, 2007 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm...is this bureaucratic payback for the NIE?
The anti-Cheney faction in the CIA managed to get the Iran NIE out without "fixing the facts around the policy" - but maybe their past sins are coming back to haunt them.
Of course, I don't know who "them" is. These factions may have nothing to do with each other. But we do know that tectonic plates have been shifting in the intelligence establishment.
Perhaps this is another victory for the anti-Cheney faction, the second of a 1-2 punch to wrench control away from the neocons.
Dana Perino: "The president has no recollection of being informed..." Gee. That's an awfully legalistic-sounding phrase. One can only hope Bush is anticipating having his words examined in a legal proceeding.
December 7, 2007 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it's payback, I think the CIA tapes are cover for the NIE. Think about it, while this is egregious obstruction of justice and so on, there have to be tons of other recordings that involve the same techniques, so thinking of this as the linchpin of torture documentation seems a bit shrill. Besides that, now the White House gets to look like good guys, saying they recommended the recordings be kept around.
December 7, 2007 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think what Perino said was "The president has no recollection of being aware..." (I thought it particularly apt phrasing.) But in either case, I think it is called "a non-denial denial."
--Lindsey
December 7, 2007 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
This should be bush's epitaph. It is emblematic of everything this man has ever gotten himself into.
I picture the Tombstone:
These two short sentences contain everything. Lies. And the excuse.
December 8, 2007 5:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the phrase
the dual meaning of the word "lies" is great.December 8, 2007 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gerald Posner has a post on huffingtonpost that claims there WAS some good intelligence that cam from the taping of the torture. THe one torture subject spilled all the beans on how the Pakis and Saudis govts. were solidly behind the 911 attacks. SO, what pops out is that two of our biggest allies were knee deep in it. And of course, we hid that info wherever it became visible.
SO it is not so much that TORTURE was caught on tape, it was that the info spilled was incredibly damning to the US and its allies and highlighted a covered up fact that our buds were IN ON 911 and Bushhco covered it up.
December 7, 2007 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I heard this hypothesis too. I'm curious what Larry thinks of it. Larry?
December 7, 2007 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also so that and that it was not so much that these governments as a whole were involved as that a few in high places were and that they were promptly eliminated. There is a certain plausibility there -- given the ongoing trust of the Bushies in Pakistan and the Saudis -- it is a trust of mutual complicity in extralegal activities. The officials couldn't easily be tried given that information was coming from U.S. torturers, etc.
The claim is that the tapes were not of torture, but of a post-torture interview with Saudi officials -- the torture victim trusted them and readily told them who to contact to get him out of there.
Sounds like the plot of a bad movie, but it makes as much sense as filming the conduct of torture which strikes me as a really bad idea and not one that torturers would be all that keen on.
global citizen
December 8, 2007 5:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Posner's comments in Huffington Post reflect what he published in 2003 in his book, "Why America Slept" (Random House). This book caused something of a small storm when published, because he describes Video Tapes of the interrogation sufficently well to have either seen them himself, or had a source who was a detailed note taker at a showing. Chapter 19 of his book, The Interrogation, is devoted to precisely what was on tape, and what happened, according to Posner, once the information was accumulated by CIA.
I have no idea how much trust should be placed in Posner's reporting -- it is just useful to know that he describes video tapes, and he published in 2003.
Included in the description -- Zubaydah was questioned while under the influence of a sort of "Truth Serum" (thiopental sodium) on March 31, 2002 in Kandahar, at a special forces medical facility. Efforts were made to make Zubaydah believe he was in a Saudi medical facility, and his caregivers were Saudi, but his interrigators were American. Under drugs, both pain killers and the thiopental sodium, Zubaydah gave the names of several members of the Saudi Royal Family, including private phone numbers, and provided information as to how they had been involved with the 9/11 plot, before 9/11. These included Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul-Aziz, a nephew of King Fahd, and well known in the US as the owner of a Thoroughbred stable which had won the Kentucky Derby and a number of other Triple Crown races. Though Posner doesn't mention it (wonder why?) it was also Prince Ahmed who was in Lexington Kentucky on 9/11, and who organized one of the major flights that removed Saudi's from the US within a few days of the attacks. The Americans informed the Saudi's of these fruits of interrogation, and shortly thereafter Prince Ahmed died of an apparent heart attack. Another Saudi Royal mentioned by Zubaydah was Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud. He died in a one car accident while on the way to Prince Ahmed's burial. Zubaydah also named Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al Kabir. He died a few days later of thirst. The Pakistani named by Zubaydah was Air Marshal Mushaf Ali Mir -- and he died in a plane crash in February 2003 along with his wife and a number of High Ranking Officers in the Pakistani Air Force. Thus all of the high ranking Saudi's and Pakistani's named by Zubaydah while under medication and chemical enhancers to the interrogation process, met a strange death within months. The one person who has not died, Prince Turki -- became ambassador to GB, and then to the US, before he was undercut, apparently by Prince Bandar's back channel connection to Cheney. Prince Turki just resigned and went home.
Subsequently, and not by Posner, the FBI did a close analysis of Zubaydah's diary, and claimed that he was mentally disturbed. Portions of the translated diary have been published and seem to suggest CIA placed all to much faith in what was learned from Zubaydah -- that he was really little more than a Travel Agent in the al-Qaeda set-up, and anything he said under questioning should be taken lightly. In otherwords we have two different narratives, and either one or both is probably disinformation for some reason released to the US and World Press.
I would also point out that in the Acknowledgements section, Posner thanks an "interesting" selection of people. Among them, Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson, Former DCI James Woolsey and Laurie Mylrole. Each of these of course have their own agenda -- and one has to consider that while critically reading Posner's reporting. Does he now share any of these agendas? Did he share them in 2003 when he published his book, including that quite close description of what was on a video tape?
December 8, 2007 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not convinced how much information from our torture effort has value. Apparently the translators were hired by a contractor without much quality control over accuracy of translation ability.. ( See Greenwald, see Iraq for Sale)
December 8, 2007 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, now we know, beyond a doubt, that we have been torturing POW's to try to make them say something we want to hear. This means, if there ever was a doubt, that Bush lied about this, just like he lies about everything. Good thing impeachment is off the table.
Hoppy in Sacramento
December 7, 2007 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now hold on just one minute Hoppy. I have to object to you refering to these prisoners as "POW's". Even though they are prisoners and this is a war, they are NOT POW's. POW's are different. POW's have rights that are spelled out in the Geneva Conventions. And they are NOT murderous cold-blooded killers. That would make them criminals, and criminals have rights spelled out by the Constitution and the UCMJ.
These people have no rights, not even basic human rights. Therefore we must work backwards and conclude that these people are not people at all, but MALEVOLENT DEMONS OF PURE EVIL. That's why these tapes were destroyed. So that the sight of these demons levitating and spinning their heads 360 would not cause a world-wide panic.
December 8, 2007 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rated highly for sheer cheekiness.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
December 9, 2007 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
On the question of timing of the NIE release and the tapes disclosure, honestly I think that this is a case of coincidence--two big scoops by the NYT very close together. The tapes story does not diminish the NIE story--that still has legs. The tapes story, on the other hand, is the type of tale that constitutional crisis moments are made of.
Let's not take our eyes off Judge Brinkema in the Eastern District of Virginia. It is a huge understatement to say that federal judges take a very dim view of destruction of evidence they have ordered produced. There will be hell to pay for that, and there is a looming fight over disclosure of the remaining taped material. The USA has already taken the position that the additional material should not be produced. Congress will want them produced as well.
Democrats like Dick Durbin are fighting to get ahead of the story, because we will likely find that other Dems on intelligence committees (like Durbin) knew about the existence of the tapes and said nothing.
nrglaw
December 7, 2007 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. I think that one thing we've learned very clearly is that new scandals push the old ones off the table.
I think this also follows a very clear pattern where anyone who stands up to the Bush administration somehow ends up getting unrelated smears.
Scott Ritter contradicts wmd's, suddenly he's under investigation as a pedophile.
Joe Wilson contradicts Bush, suddenly we were hearing about how his wife was arranging free trips.
Paul O'Neal, Richard Clarke, the Dixie Chicks, John Kerry and the Swift Boats, Al Gore.
If you haven't gotten a nose for the smear tactics, then you haven't been paying attention.
December 8, 2007 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Besides the obvious point that this is morally disgusting and virtually useless I can't help but think 'how stupid have people within our government & it's agencies become'?
Larry you make an excellent point calling bullshit on the reason for their destruction - of course identities could be masked. They've done it on Jerry Springer but our geniuses @ the CIA couldn't manage it? Right. But I am wondering why? Where they going to laugh about them later & email them to friends like photos of naked stacks of Iraqi prisoners? Maybe they were going to use them as training aids for the next generation of spooks? Did they think that even knowing torture doesn't work that they might miss something not at all useful and plan to scour over the tapes later? Why in the hell do you record it?
It's like stupid criminals that tape themselves comitting a crime. We've all heard of stories like thst before. And we've all said to ourselves & our friends - "how stupid can a person be"? Well apparently the answer to that question is stupid enough to work in the current American intelligence field. I know there are good (and intelligent) people in that field still I just wonder why they seemingly aren't in charge.
December 8, 2007 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why in the hell do you record it?
Ever see "The Day of the Jackal"? Sometimes, it takes a few later listenings to tease the "information" out of the "noise." All that tiresome screaming -- so very entropic.
December 8, 2007 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the direct result of electing to office a gang that has the philosophy that government should not exist. They are also appealing to like-minded voters for election.
The corollary to that is that they have no interest in how government works, and think that management is what they saw in the Godfather movies - They expect the boss to tell the subordinate "Get it done. No restrictions on how."
Then, of course, they complain about all the people who are out to keep them from doing their jobs.
This is the John Bircher's and the Wall Street Republicans of the republican Party after Nixon's southern strategy brought in the racist and religious white southerners to join them, while they have been actively removing the relatively sane moderate Republicans. They are now not only fucking up the Southern states and Texas, now they are fucking up the entire U.S. and a lot of those parts of the world they can't comprehend.
And they still think the problem is that their enemies won't let them do their job efficiently. It's not their fault everything is going bad! Ignorance, stupidity, close-mindedness, and severe paranoia, all in one neat package called the Republican Party, with bush as their poster boy and Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee working hard to take Bush's poster-boy job.
December 8, 2007 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
RickB said:
A campaign ad showing Huckleberry or Romney morphing into Bush while having either one of them saying something Bushlike in the background should be worth 3 million votes
December 8, 2007 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think there should also be a video of someone being waterboaded with Romney saying he just couldn't say...
Who wants a prez who can't make a decision about something so obvious.
Speaking of morphing -- how about Rudy morphing into Don Corleon? And smiling wedding pictures from all three weddings,etc, with a couple of shots of the latest Mrs -- BACK WHEN SHE WAS JUST A MISTRESS -- riding around with police who could have been protecting the populace.
Jan
December 8, 2007 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Presidential general election campaign is just writing itself, isn't it?
If the Democratic nominee pulls his/her punches I will be thoroughly P.O.d at the village society inside the beltway, even more than I am at present.
December 8, 2007 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a question.
Why only "at least two" tapes?
Did they only videotape two interrogations? Every police department in America videotapes all their interrogations -- to protect the interrogators and to have presentable evidence. Are there more tapes? Did they only destroy two of many tapes? Why do they acknowledge it? Why would they make tapes of something they knew to be illegal? Were they over the line in only two tapes? Was the content of those interrogations relevant to their destruction? Was there something special (like Rumsfeld attending) that couldn't be edited out?
Why even acknowledge the tapes in the first place?
Here is my guess.
There is a stratagem I've noticed over the last six years. When they want a lot they ask for a little. For instance, when Padilla was arrested, the headlines blared "dirty bomb". The subtext -- the really important issue of habeas corpus -- got buried under the barrage of horrible possibilities. Declaring an American citizen an "enemy combatant" becomes an arcane legal issue rather than an assault upon a fundamental legal principle. After all, it's only one unpleasant man.
Or, for instance, they sunset the Patriot Act judging (correctly) that the most radical departure from the Constitution can best be accomplished in small steps. By inches rather than by yards.
Then, when all is said and done, nothing terrible has happened and they can say, "see, you're all worked up over nothing."
Now, with only "at least two" tapes destroyed, the fuss isn't so big. Sure, there is torture, but it's not as if it happens all the time.
The real story is the public acclimation to and institutionalization of torture.
(from No Comment)Who will be prosecuted or even reprimanded for only "at least two" torture sessions?
Instead, the small number guarantees that the vast public remembers "fighting terror" and small excesses that shouldn't be quibbled over by academics, intellectuals and partisan politicians.
MW
December 8, 2007 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good points and likely true in many ways.
I'm going to go an opposite route than I usually tread and guess that the beans were spilled in this case because there are some within the system that are decent human beings and professionals who take pride in their work & are as disgusted by this as we are. Perhaps it's "only two tapes" because those were the only two that this respectable and heroic individual knew for certain existed.
It may be that the full truth is never learned but this will not slip beneath the radar internationally. This has confirmed what many have claimed & accused America of for quite some time. Now it's all but confirmed & the world just became a more unfriendly place for Americans (if that was at all possible).
If there is any hope of restoring a shread of our nation's credibility in my lifetime we need to start seriously addressing these terrible crimes & punishing those involved & responsible severely. I fear we're running out of time.
December 8, 2007 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
When I first read your explanation, I felt, intuitively, that it makes sense.
Further, your explanation tangentially supports my belief (expressed elsewhere here) that the recent NIE report more or less represents (in Newt Gingrich's words today) a "coup" by the intelligence professionals.
So I went back an read the NYTimes article and found this:
Who oversaw the Moussaoui prosecution?
Paul J. McNulty!
So now, my guess is that someone (probably the NYTimes reporters or their editors) asked the right question: 'What became of those two interrogation tapes?' The official answer, the bureaucracy's answer, was simply, 'They've been destroyed.'
As we see, that answer creates some questions the reality-based community can ask of the Unitary Executive.
MW
December 9, 2007 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thus becoming simply the banality of evil. Everyday evil.... I fear you're right.
December 9, 2007 4:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seymour Hersh : The US government has videotapes of boys being sodomized at Abu Ghraib prison.
"The worst is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking," the reporter told an ACLU convention last week. Hersh says there was "a massive amount of criminal wrongdoing that was covered up at the highest command out there, and higher."
The women were passing messages out saying please come and kill me because of what’s happened. And basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children, in cases that have been [video] recorded, the boys were sodomized, with the cameras rolling, and the worst above all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking. That your government has, and they’re in total terror it’s going to come out. It’s impossible to say to yourself, how did we get there, who are we, who are these people that sent us there.
Information Clearing House
Any bet as to whether or not these tapes are still in existence?
Another day, another pack of lies and more laws broken by the Bush/Cheney Junta.
And all done in our name.
Most likely, this nation will never recover from all of the criminal acts and murderous activities of the Bush/Cheney regime.
December 8, 2007 4:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
thank you for the link to the Seymour Hersh speech..very revealing.
December 8, 2007 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
1983, speaking of our nation not recovering, did you hear the news?
Iran has just dropped the dollar as its means of currency --> not stable enough.
Is there anything that Bush/Cheney cannot ruin? If anyone doubted that our economy was in trouble before, this will settle the question. Once all of those whom we have insulted and ignored pile on it will be just one more smelly piece of our current regime's legacy.
Jan
December 8, 2007 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
One argument put forth by a lot of people as to why we really invaded Iraq was that Saddam was close to dropping the dollar as Iraq's means of currency.
No, CVille Dem, there is nothing that Bush/Cheney cannot ruin.
December 8, 2007 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Iranians have been working on switching from getting paid in USD to Euro's for awhile. Recently, they made it official.
Like another poster said, this is the same thing that Saddam Hussein had in mind for Iraq.
He made that fateful decision months before the "official" announcement that the Bush/Cheney Junta was declaring war on Iraq.
Coincidence? I think not.
December 9, 2007 4:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I fear you are correct. I have thought this for some time. It just keeps getting worse. I say this with a calm sense of doom. That's the worst of it.
It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion... having tried and tried to draw attention to it... and then... simply watching with a dumbfounded, almost detached, shock.
December 9, 2007 5:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
vanity fair magazine had a vivid account of the development of the torture 'policy' and the tactics used to break abu zubaydah. according to the article two psychologists were primarily responsible:
Two psychologists in particular played a central role: James Elmer Mitchell, who was attached to the C.I.A. team that eventually arrived in Thailand, and his colleague Bruce Jessen. Neither served on the task force or are A.P.A. members. Both worked in a classified military training program known as sere—for Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape—which trains soldiers to endure captivity in enemy hands. Mitchell and Jessen reverse-engineered the tactics inflicted on sere trainees for use on detainees in the global war on terror, according to psychologists and others with direct knowledge of their activities. The C.I.A. put them in charge of training interrogators in the brutal techniques, including "waterboarding," at its network of "black sites." In a statement, Mitchell and Jessen said, "We are proud of the work we have done for our country." ...
Mitchell and Jessen's methods were so controversial that, among colleagues, the reaction to their names alone became a litmus test of one's attitude toward coercion and human rights. Their critics called them the "Mormon mafia" (a reference to their shared religion) and the "poster boys" (referring to the F.B.I.'s "most wanted" posters, which are where some thought their activities would land them).
Former director of central intelligence George Tenet, 2002. © Ron Sachs/CNP/Corbis.
The reversed sere tactics they originated have come to shatter various American communities, putting law enforcement and intelligence gathering on a collision course, fostering dissent within the C.I.A., and sparking a war among psychologists over professional identity that has even led to a threat of physical violence at a normally staid A.P.A. meeting. The spread of the tactics—and the photographs of their wild misuse at Abu Ghraib—devastated America's reputation in the Muslim world. All the while, Mitchell and Jessen have remained more or less behind the curtain, their almost messianic belief in the value of breaking down detainees permeating interrogations throughout the war effort.
"I think [Mitchell and Jessen] have caused more harm to American national security than they'll ever understand," says Kleinman.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/07/torture200707?printable=true¤tPage=all
December 8, 2007 5:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I abhor and repudiate that any psychologists would use their skills for evil purposes. It tarnishes all of us.
December 9, 2007 5:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't a large part of the CIA's involvement in being a largely uncontrolled dark army centered in its roots in the Office of Strategic Services and the sensibility which carried over after WW2? The OSS was fighting, really fighting not just collecting intelligence, a brutal, shadowy potential global hegemon. When the CIA was created, many of the folks who had engaged in that conflict were brought into the new organization and its practices followed. Instead of being an intelligence organization, it turned into a bastardized hybrid and has remained that to this day. Has the time arrived to recognize that and split the functions of the CIA into those bits we don't mind acknowledging and those we'd rather hide in the attic along with Uncle Ernie?
December 8, 2007 6:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will try to give you a longer answer when I have time later today, probably from augmenting my Wikipedia article on the relationship between clandestine HUMINT (human-source intelligence) and covert operations. There was considerable change, over roughly 8 years, between WWII and a stabilized structure of both the CIA and other covert action arms of the government. By no means was there a direct transition of OSS into CIA; the "dirty tricks" part stayed separate for at least 6 years.
When you say "uncontrolled dark army" and "a brutal, shadowy potential global hegemon", I literally do not understand to what you refer. Perhaps you could clarify in more neutral language?
I'm also confused on what you mean by "bits we don't mind acknowledging."
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 8, 2007 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tim Weiner's book Legacy of Ashes goes into a lot of detail about this.
December 8, 2007 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tom,
With all due respect, a general reference to a book doesn't answer the question. I spend a good deal of time in declassified historical records, the primary sources rather than interpretation by a journalist. I've worked on some projects that had me working with the intelligence community -- some very noncontroversial, when I was the Library of Congress person meeting with NSA and CIA to figure out how to display Arabic on a computer screen (it's distinctly not simple).
I am not an apologist for the intelligence community, and can think of all sorts of things from just plain stupidity, to horror stories, to brilliant work. To have a reasonable discussion of the subject, I believe it is essential to get beyond things at the level of fUSSR terminology. Their general term for Western intelligence, especially US, were the "dark forces", but they referred to their own equivalent as the "organs of state security."
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 9, 2007 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
"By no means was there a direct transition of OSS into CIA; the "dirty tricks" part stayed separate for at least 6 years."
You've got me confused, Howard. I was supporting the comment you made above by referring people to Weiner's book. I wasn't trying to answer any questions.
December 9, 2007 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 9, 2007 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously, it's the nuances that get you. The neocons have the "organs of homeland security".
It could be interesting to be more specific. Would Cheney be the gallbladder of homeland security?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 9, 2007 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd go in a different direction, and suggest that one man's 'organ' is another man's 'tool'; either way, the phallic representation of manhood is more important to some than the final usage itself.
Regarding Cheney, i'd borrow a (para)phrase from one of your earlier posts, and posit him as the extraneous anus of US intelligence.
December 9, 2007 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who else would the OSS have been fighting primarily, other than the Empire of Japan?
The CIA never seems to be able to perform its seemingly mandated mission of intelligence gathering and assessment because the folks in charge like playing at being James Bond far too much. They then seem to fail on both counts, providing far too little intelligence and far too many bungled covert operations. Is that clear enough?
December 9, 2007 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please understand that I am most interested in finding solutions, not slogans.
Well, to begin with, the OSS had relatively little to do with the Empire of Japan, since MacArthur banned them from his South West Pacific Theater. MacArthur did not object to unconventional forces, but he preferred to use forces under his direct command, such as the Central Bureau. Indeed, his distaste for organizations over which he had no direct authority, and had not created, caused a significant delay in getting support to the spontaneous anti-Japanese guerilla movement, supplemented with Americans who had not surrendered.
Before going off into emotional terminology, I should note that a spontaneous uprising, be it in the Phillipines or Iraq, is quite legal under the customary laws of land warfare, as long as rhe key four conditions are met.
OSS Detachment 101 operated effectively against the Japanese, but that was in Stilwell's China-Burma-India theater, not MacArthur's. Detachment 101 (Eifler, then Peers) provided clandestine reconnaissance and some direct action, principally in support of the larger Ranger unit, also operating behind enemy lines, Merrill's Marauders (officially the 5307th Composite Unit (provisional)). To varying extents, both operated in clandestine and covert ways. Are you claiming these were unwarranted?
OSS, as well as British and French organizations, certainly operated clandestinely and covertly in Europe during WWII. Is this something about which you disagree? Not to use a Godwinism, but I really don't understand the point you were making with the Nazi reference.
OSS had significant intelligence collection and analysis roles, as did its successor, the CIA. I suggest that James Bond had rather little influence on either CIA or the Secret Intelligence Service, although both have had their rogues and traitors.
No, it's not clear at all. Indeed, there have been bungled intelligence analyses and bungled clandestine, as well as covert, operations. There have also been successes in both areas. I'm hearing a lot of heat but little substance, and perhaps, judging from your OSS comments, a lack of familiarity with actual history. As a practical matter, it is not an either-or between intelligence and covert (to be distinguished from clandestine) operations. There is a spectrum inbetween, and I can talk about successes and failures in both.
Success and failure also need to be measured against the nature of their assignment at the White House level. Unfortunately, there were times the White House was not simply told "I'm sorry, Mr. President. With those restrictions, the proposed operation is not feasible." Talk to Brigade 2506 about that.
There are very real needs to improve oversight, and there are both some thoughtful proposals (e.g., >Paul Pillar's, as well as recognition of some Congressional cowardice. Actually, one of the current challenges is that Rumsfeld designated certain operations as military special operations, which exempted them from the process of review for CIA sensitive operations. I'm in the midst of reading a more detailed thesis on the legal aspects on this particular problem and will have more to say about it when I finish it.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 9, 2007 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
As much as I feel the temptation to assign a grade to our intelligence-gathering and covert-action efforts, I understand that one has to try. The rub is what the nature of that effort will be.
I find little to be proud of in covert action. The intercepts that held up for a while, the occasional rescued agent or scientist, the occasionally effective sabotage. But the successful coups were pretty much a case of outbidding the opposition, perhaps fitting for a nation that worships business. And the more important issue is not the success rate, but whether these things should have been done. On that I am far from persuaded.
On intelligence-gathering, as I said, one has to try. But it is easy to argue that we somehow survived missing completely the really big stories. Berlin, Stalin's nukes, the Korean War, Sputnik, the fall of communism; the list of things we did not see coming kind of outweighs the events we did see.
The emphasis should not be on doing absolutely everything one can think of, but on the reasonable, the reliable, and the effective.
BTW, remind me of the clandestine/covert difference. Clandestine Service is the same as Operations, right? I'll guess that if placing a tap required action in the field, that might still be under Intelligence. But the computer chips with a back door that we supplied to Russia would have been Operations.
December 9, 2007 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm in the middle of revising a Wikipedia article on the battle of whether the Pentagon or CIA controls covert action, as well as who controls clandestine operations and who, if anyone, has the whole picture so units don't trip over each other. As I say, it's in draft, but I would welcome comments. Never mind the article title; it's one of my working "sandboxes". I'm reading a number of graduate theses that are adding bits, but I need to cut it off soon.
Understand that the article is part of a series of them on intelligence, with top of the hierarchy.
To answer your question, a covert action is one that you know (or reasonably could know) someone is doing something to you, such as a raid. What you don't know is who did it, at least well enough to prove it to outsiders.
A clandestine action, such as espionage or special reconnaissance, is one in which the target is unaware that anything is happening. Now, covert actions want to stay clandestine until they actually do something.
For a rough distinction, think:
Taps in the field, depending on where they are being placed, might be Operations, or possibly the joint CIA-NSA Special Collection Service. Of course, if the intercept can be done remotely, that's basically NSA.
You might find interesting a newly declassified report on the Berlin Tunnel, a tap that was considered quite successful until its expected delivery. Sadly, there are at least two declassified versions floating around; this is the one that should have Appendix B, the assessment of the value.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 9, 2007 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for illuminating.
To inform people who might think clandestine/intelligence is glamorous, I think of the guys that sat on the ocean floor for weeks at a time, running the tap on the cable off Kamchatka. Hansen killed that one, I think.
December 9, 2007 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was Ronald Pelton, but the principle holds.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 9, 2007 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
One expects the Republicans to protect the torturers, but Democrat Jane Harmon admits she knew of the existence of the tapes in 2003 (she was ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee at the time). Why didn't Harmon do more to investigate the content of the tapes at that time? Why do the Democrats continually fail in their oversight responsibilities? Why do Democrats tolerate Democrats?
December 8, 2007 6:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cowed. They were nearly all cowed. And still are. It's reprehensible.
December 9, 2007 5:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid the public ia immune to the realities of torture. The movies depict it with the 'bad guy' always capitulating and giving up the exact information the 'good guys' want. In fact, that is the mantra of the intelligence community. So immune, that Jack Bauer was real. Could/was this possible under another Administration? War is hell and an act of vengence against an enemy for heinous acts on a battlefield are understandable, if not right. To have a staged sequence of torture events, of increasing severity, with medical people participating, is reminiscient of WWII. The other side. Senator McCain has been a recipient of some types of torture in North Vietnam and his condemnations seem terribly mild. I wish he would forget his politics and condemn this as loud as he can in the Senate as an American. And point fingers at the Pentagon and CIA and demand disclosure on a point by point basis. How much more embarassing and stupid can they look if they just declassify? It is only classified to save their asses.
December 8, 2007 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if Porter Goss, even more of loyal hack than Tenet, was put in charge just for the purpose of tidying up a bit.
Strive for the ideal, but deal with what's real.
December 8, 2007 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The CIA again shoots itself in the foot. "Slam Dunk", torture, secret prisons, destroying tapes, etc. I imagine when all is said and done there will be more legislation that tries to get some control over the CIA and the sins we're being made aware of, then the Republican whining will start.
This couldn't happen with a President who takes the Constitution to heart, and I'm not referring to ONLY Bush.
December 8, 2007 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Born in the 40's I remember all that talk about that Jananese torture from the war. First of all was that favorite, the Chinese water torture. I never understood how it was done but the waterboarding descriptions seem to explain it pretty well. And then there was the thin strips of bamboo under the finger nails, and it still makes my skin crawl. Man that was some great torture.
Didn't we all love the films from the Middle Ages. Where the glowing hot poker was king, you really didn't need to get information to use this tool, it was for just plain fun. Who can forget the thumbscrews, iron maidens, getting broke on the wheel and the favorite hot pinchers on the naughty bits. Let's not forget Viet Nam where a helicopter ride for three could cause some pretty high tension. What about that special treatment that is still used in interrogation rooms all over the country and the world, a good old beating. If you might be later photographed you get the courtesy of getting beaten with a telephone book cause the marks aren't so bad.
When they destroyed those tapes we lost this great footage for all time. This is our legacy, our history. We need to torture.
Cause, ya see, that if they didn't cause permanent organ failure or death, hell it was legal, so why not. Even the sickest of people have to work somewhere. And to enable them, some sicko's have to write the rules for them to work by.
December 8, 2007 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Randy,
here's how I understood the Chinese Water Torture:
Lay the victim face up on a flat board, bind him to the board. Hang a container of water above his head with a very small hole in the bottom. The hole allows one single drop of water to escape every 5 or 10 seconds and each drop lands on the victim's forehead.
After X amount of time, each drop seems like an explosion going off inside the victim's head. The worst part is when the victim sees each drop forming on the exit hole and knows what's coming.
December 8, 2007 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Larry's comment that ***************
When the truth comes out I think we are likely to discover the people doing the questioning were contractors, not undercover Agency officers.******
seems to be on target, according to Robert Greenwald's film,
Iraq for Sale. There are amazing reports in the film about all the ways the interrogations went wrong.
December 8, 2007 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
A major problem with contractors is that the contracting organization loses control of how a contracted job is performed.
There are three forms of organizational control - you can accept or reject the output of a job (normally a standardized product with clear, precise specifications), you can observe and correct the behavior of those doing the job, or you can socialize and professionalize individuals over a long period of time so that they know the standards expected and have a reputation of performing to those standards in both output and methods.
When you contract a job out, you change the focus of control from professionalism to one that is primarily accepting or rejecting the results. If the contract does not call for them to do the job under supervision, you also lose the direct observation and correction portion of control. Blackwater is an excellent example of that loss of control, as was the earlier example of Dyncorp employees who were buying sex slaves in Kosovo and allegedly flying drunk in Colombia.
The clandestine contractors are probably under even less control than the security contractors. When they operate independently, it is up to their personal conscience and the likelihood of being caught whether they act professionally or not. The security contractors like Dyncorp at least generally have their own management who, if they are concerned about their company reputation, will provide some direct control. (Blackwater's Eric Prince has little training and experience as a manager, which explains a lot about Blackwater's lack of control.)
As far as I can tell, the CIA contractors were not only operating independently in Abu Ghraib, they were in control of the military individuals there. The expansion required by fighting two wars has clearly made it difficult to find qualified people, particularly qualified people who are known by their reputation to be well-trained, effective and professional.
In short, the use of contractors who no one knows for many years in highly professional jobs like the CIA is just looking for trouble. All forms of organizational control have been thrown out the window. Even with the best of intentions, they won't know when their boss is stepping over the line, so they won't correct him. They don't dare, since their contract is on the line.
That's the system the Republicans want, and the one that Cheney foisted on DoD back when he was the Secretary of Defense.
One reason why the Chinese Communists defeated the Kuo Min Tang was that Mao maintained tight control of his troops and punished corruption and mistreatment of civilians. Chiang Kai Shek permitted and perhaps even encouraged corruption n the KMT. The more tightly controlled force will usually defeat the uncontrolled one.
Unfortunately, control of the organization is not something a leader can delegate to underlings, and requires taking an interest in and understanding of how the organization works.
Which explains why neither Bush nor the movement conservatives are qualified to run even a dog fight with highly motivated dogs. Nor are most Senators or lawyers in general. They neither understand how to motivate an organization, nor do they generally know how to control one.
It especially explains why contracting out government functions is a very bad idea. Unless, like Cheney, you plan to leave the government and get government contracts. Except that it remains a very bad idea for the government.
December 8, 2007 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Forgive my saying this. I haven't scrolled to see if anyone else has picked up on it.
But gee whiz, get a grip people.
What do you think? After seven years of torture, waterboarding, putting cigarettes out in peoples ears, stress positions, sleep deprivation, electrodes, sodomy, secret prisons, extraordinary renditions and waterboarding, why is this shocking?
Surely the CIA's methods and tactics are well known and documented by this time, that there are ample records of every sort, visual and otherwise.
But up until now, the CIA has always received full cover, they've gotten a free hand, complete impunity.
So what's changed?
It's the NIE. The current flame war on the CIA is simply the punishment for the CIA for not playing ball.
If the CIA had simply taken the Administration's position and supported the Bush line on Iran... well, they'd be sitting pretty.
It disgusts me that the media are so compliant with the Bush agenda. It offends me that Liberals are so ready to do Bush's dirty work. I'm astounded that as a nation American's have such an obstinate refusal to connect the dots.
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, guys.
December 8, 2007 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
'Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life...'
Well you may be right Val but it IS the American way! We've refined those three things into a grisly artform (who says American innovation is dead). Now enough of all this thinking & talking, let's head down to Hooter's for some hot wings & Jaeger shots...
>_
December 8, 2007 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
we must always keep in mind that the cheney government sees the CIA as the enemy. when the CIA undermines the cheney government's agenda, the cheney government slaps it back.
December 8, 2007 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You state that there is documentation, but very little of it meets the test of being evidence of criminality in a court. This looks like it could.
The members of the Republican Party are clearly not simply "honorable opponents" who are due respect even when they are wrong. They have devolved into criminals and war criminals who should be in prison instead of in American government office.
December 8, 2007 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed--I have long been arguing for a RICO prosecution, as the Bush cabal, in concert with the RNC, is the very definition of 'organized criminal conspiracy.'
December 9, 2007 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if the White House wanted them destroyed, and suggested as much with wink, wink, nod, nod. Now, they throw the CIA under the bus, and make it look like the CIA is covering up the “CIA Torture”. This will divert attention from the fact that torture was Bush’s personal policy eagerly implemented by his/Cheney White House.
December 8, 2007 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was exactly the comment I made to my spouse last night. Sure... Harriet Miers said, "Don't do it...wink,wink." If we'd had that on tape, we would have seen the wink, wink. There is just no way underlings - in this administration - did this alone. Who fired the US Attorneys? hmmmm.... Same thing here! I'll never believe otherwise!
December 9, 2007 5:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shrub's gonna be awful busy on Jan. 19, 2009. His must-pardon list is going to have more names than the Manhattan phone book.
December 8, 2007 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is why he should be impeached beforehand! Yes.... I know all the problems. I'm saying should.
December 9, 2007 5:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a completely hypothetical question, but...
If the president is impeached, would it be possible for him to do all his pardons, say the day before the (presumably) guilty vote is cast? In other words, are any of his powers held back during the course of an impeachment?
Can you imagine all those people who would have to actually pay for their crimes (including our current junta members) if he lost the ability to pardon?
Jan
December 9, 2007 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Can you imagine all those people who would have to actually pay for their crimes (including our current junta members) if he lost the ability to pardon?"
It would be a rather extensive list, to be sure.
December 9, 2007 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everything else is done in secrecy, why not a secret pardon list.
I'm sure the DoJ has some legal (secret) ruling on that right now. And when a case comes up the secret court will review the secret pardon list, the relevant secret signing statement, and the supporting secret DoJ ruling all done in a super secret secure facility and the secret judge will simply tell the attorneys (both the prosecuting and defendant's) that they have no right to see anything.
Case dismissed.
You know, the "Get Smart" TV title of my favorite childhood secret agent man has new meaning. Not so funny.
*******************************************
“I, ..., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."
December 9, 2007 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not for nothing that the term "Star Chamber" for secret courts has gone down in infamy in history.
Note that wikipedia says about the term "legal or administrative bodies with strict, arbitrary rulings and secretive proceedings are sometimes called, metaphorically or poetically, star chambers. This is a pejorative term and intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the proceedings. The inherent lack of objectivity of any politically motivated charges has led to substantial reforms in English law in most jurisdictions since that time."
This is the past that the conservatives want to return to. 1641 and earlier. And they don't want the secrecy and politization limited merely to judicial proceedings - when they bother with judicial proceedings at all.
December 9, 2007 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it surprising (I say with sarcasm) that Bush didn't at least ask if the new NIE might have said Iran had 12 nukes, mounted on intercontinental missiles and all pointing at our largest cities.
December 8, 2007 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Valdron--Not sure how the retaliation angle relates. If anything, the two stories simply reinforce the big picture of a government out of control, not subject to law or country or the will of the people.
Americans do not want their politicians leading us into war on the basis of lies. That is the NIE story.
Americans also do not want their government to take it upon itself to destroy the evidence of the truth in the middle of public debates about a question so close to the matter of how we as Americans see ourselves: Are we or should we be a nation that tortures? That is the CIA tapes story.
These are two vastly important stories and both will be in high profile for a while to come.
I agree with you only to the extent that lesser scandals (Rudy and Judi come to mind) will be moved off the front page.
nrglaw
December 8, 2007 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
When has what Americans want ever factored into the Bush/Cheney dastardly duo's decisions?
...the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. Bill Moyers
December 8, 2007 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, those of us who disagree... our wants don't matter. Those who agree... their wants matter. The 24%.
December 9, 2007 5:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nrglaw, I think that you are being willfully obtuse rather than naive.
The Bush administration has demonstrated a long history of retaliation against any group or agency which frustrates its agenda or causes it any sort of embarrassment. This has extended to former insiders and cabinet officials, and is has previously extended to the CIA.
It is no surprise whatsoever that following the release of an intelligence report that displeases and offends the Bush administration, that the CIA comes under fire.
The CIA's transgression? What that comes down to is stuff that the CIA has been doing for several years, without substantial comment. So why now?
It's also notable that the CIA's transgressions in respect of torture and interrogation were licensed directly or indirectly by the Bush Administration. But peculiarly the scandal is confined to the CIA. Is that a coincidence?
The Bush administration is teaching the CIA a few lessons. Those lessons are: Don't f*ck with us. Be a team player. Deliver the results we want.
As for leading the country into war? The Bush administration continues to struggle to do this. As it became clear to the Bush administration that the NIE would not say what it wanted, it has shifted its rational to Iran's 'interference' in Iraq. What's the latest headline: "Gates says that Iran seeks chaos everywhere"?
As for your assertions: "Americans do not want their country lead into war on the basis of lies." Well, that's a nice sentiment, but I don't see any national outrage throwing Bush out of office in 2004 or impeaching him at any point, for lying his way into Iraq. Currently the attitude is 'get over it.'
"As for whether America is a nation of torturers." Well, sorry, that question has been decisively answered. The deletion of a few tapes doesn't make a material contribution.
The Deletion, in terms of the larger issues, are not that significant. We've already had extensive evidence of the denial of medical treatment, waterboarding, shoving lit cigarettes into ears, asphyxiation, stress positions, induced hypothermia, sleep deprivation, use of animals to terrorize and mutilate, use of or torture of hostage family members, sodomy and anal violation, a network of secret prisons deliberately removed from American jurisdiction, prisoners dying from interrogation, repeated assertions of the legal right and authority to torture and deny basic civil rights, repeated efforts to redefine obvious torture and deliberate policies of extraordinary rendition. All of this is well established and documented.
The CIA tape story is a part of that, but only a small part of it. It is a hermetically sealed story which doesn't reach to the white house, which is confined to the CIA, and which will punish the CIA. Which is what the Bush administration wants.
And as the CIA is dragged through the mud, they are not only punished but discredited. The NIE is discredited and forgotten. The Bush administration moves onto a new Cassus Belli, and the drums of war beat on.
December 9, 2007 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"As for your assertions: "Americans do not want their country lead into war on the basis of lies." Well, that's a nice sentiment, but I don't see any national outrage throwing Bush out of office in 2004 or impeaching him at any point, for lying his way into Iraq. Currently the attitude is 'get over it.' "
Is this the attitude of most Americans or the craven attitude of the Democratic leadership?
December 9, 2007 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where are the millions of people in the streets, where are the demonstrations, the boycots, where are the sit down strikes? Where is the civil disobedience? Where is the uproar and the outrage?
When the Ukraine election became controversial, there was a massive explosion of people power. Hundreds of thousands, millions or people, demonstrated and mobilized.
Even in Iraq we've seen massive demonstrations that swayed or pushed the Occupation into elections.
Where is this in America?
December 9, 2007 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush is so arrogant he needs to be impeached and removed. That is the only thing that will get this moron's attention. And Nancy has sabotaged that.
December 9, 2007 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're not doing a good enough job emphasizing the cost of the war. The Democrats are going to hand over another $500B next week and both parties pretend it's for "the troops". The troops would be as rich as Warren Buffet if they kept getting all the money thrown away in their name.
As long as Americans believe it's a free lunch, they're not going to do anything about it.
Maybe the Dems should have said, "we're going to support the troops and we're going to raise your income taxes every time we pass another bill to support the troops." Then we'd see how much supporting the troops Americans want to do.
December 9, 2007 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where is America? At the freakin' gas pump watching the price of gasoline. We're gasoline junkies willing to sell our children for our next fix. We just don't want to admit it.
December 10, 2007 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002
"For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk." Washington Post 12/9/2007
Democrats Won't Try To Impeach President
"Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told her caucus members during their weekly closed meeting Wednesday "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," spokesman Brendan Daly said." Washington Post 5/12/2006
December 8, 2007 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feels like the last nail, doesn't it?
December 9, 2007 5:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then there is the clandestine ops involving funding and managing Sunni terrorist groups to fight against Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iran, which are acts of war and, I’m sure, have been admitted to Rockefeller and other Dems in Congress
So they just directed their feet to the Sunni side of the street? That's nice.
December 9, 2007 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink