Terrorism works! An American President Quaked in Fear, and Sold America's Soul

CIA Director Michael 'shame of the Air Force' Hayden admitted Tuesday the the CIA has broken federal and international laws and used torture, in the form of waterboarding, to interrogate three suspected terrorists, but he quickly added that the technique has not been used in five years.

And what reasoning does he use to justify torture?

They were a bunch of chickenshits, pissing down their legs in fear.

[Keep reading]

Torture was employed at secret CIA detention facilities (the so-called 'Black Sites') at a time when little was known about al Qaeda, and they feared more attacks like those of September 11, 2001 were imminent. He seems to waive it away with a simple "those two realities have changed."

"General Hayden's acknowledgment that the CIA subjected three detainees to waterboarding is an explicit admission of criminal activity," said Joanne Mariner, terrorism and counterterrorism director for human Rights Watch. "Those who authorized these crimes have to be held accountable."

Hayden stressed that waterboarding hasn't been used in nearly five years, and that other so-called "enhanced" techniques had been used on "fewer than one-third" of the "fewer than 100" people the CIA has held since 9-11. He said that although the techniques went beyond what was allowed in the Army field manual, the attorney general had certified them as legal for the CIA. The use of waterboarding would require the agreement of the president and attorney general, he said.

His comments came during a hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee on the risk that terrorist groups pose in which he said the U.S. faced dangers from al Qaida, groups that get money or training from terrorist organizations and what officials call "homegrown extremists" in the United States.

Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell, who also testified, said that U.S. cells hadn't been very effective so far but that they could use information on the Internet to become more deadly.

When the current occupant authorized waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" (call them what they are: torture) he sold America's soul, and illustrated Ben Franklin's observation that those who would trade away their freedoms for a false sense of security deserve neither.

Waterboarding is torture. Period. Full stop.

It has long since been classified as such, and Congress is considering taking up legislation banning the CIA from using it. It is already prohibited under the Army Field Manual.

I am the ultimate Cold War brat. I have some pretty set-in-stone ideas and ideals. One of them is that we simply don't do things like that. There truly are prices that are simply too high to pay. Abdicating the moral high ground out of fear is one of them.

I realize full measure that "American Exceptionalism" was always a myth - but at least we used to pretend to behave in an exceptional manner.

There's more: "Terrorism works! An American President Quaked in Fear, and Sold America's Soul" >>

At the end of the day

Bush's 2008 SOTU -- Full text and his last! Woo hoo! The number of specific words referenced: 23 for "terror", "terrorist", or "terrorists", 11 for "al Qaida", 2 for "Taliban", 16 for "tax", "taxes", or "taxpayers", 9 for "economy" or "economics", and 6 for the "surge". Peruse a series of fact checks on Bush's final SOTU at TP.

FISA Showdown -- In case you missed it, check Pale Rider and Glenn Greenwald and "What's Next" from Paul Kiel. Statement from Hillary at FDL. Previous remarks from John Edwards.

Oh, you liberal! -- Demonstrating how Repubs and our SCLM have denigrated a great political word that makes me proud, the Reuters headline sums it up: "McCain, Romney lob 'liberal' smear in Florida push." Funny thing... what insult sticks to McCain is nonsensical. He's got a secret plan to get OBL? Oh?

More on the Mitt vs. McCain cage match on the eve of the Florida primary.

On the road to the WH, it's all about the delegates: "The possibility of a long-term slog is real for Democrats, given that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama appear evenly matched... It is less certain on the Republican side, pending the outcome of the party’s primary [in Florida] on Tuesday."

Torture -- TPM headline: "Negroponte Confirms U.S. Use of Waterboarding."

Intelligence failure -- Via Laura Rozen, Milt Bearden of the Washington Independent wrote: "American intelligence has a serious problem. But it is not that the former head of the Central Intelligence Agency’s clandestine services, Jose Rodriquez, allegedly destroyed, in 2005, the videotapes of the enhanced interrogations of terrorist detainees. No, the real problem is that institutional oversight of the intelligence community has failed. It is dysfunctional, perhaps irreparably so. There is no adult supervision of American intelligence or how the White House chooses to use it. " Read the whole thing.

Fix the Bankruptcy Bill! -- Emptywheel reported "good news" that senators plan to fix the "bad bill." But the "bad news is that we're not going to do anything about it until 2009."

Death In Iraq -- Five U.S. soldiers killed in Mosul when a military convoy was "hit by a roadside bomb.... ...It was a particularly bloody day for the U.S. military in a city that has become a gathering point for the Sunni insurgency, and where Iraq's prime minister vowed to have the 'final' battle with the group al-Qaeda in Iraq." Troop deaths for January -- 36 -- up from December's 23 killed.

Pakistani Taliban -- They have "extended their reach across all seven of Pakistan's frontier tribal regions and have infiltrated Peshawar, the provincial capital, heightening U.S. concerns that an insurrection may be broadening in the nuclear-armed nation." Uh oh. McClatchy

Help Blue Girl get a new computer -- Please. And thank you!

[That's all...no more after the jump.]

There's more: "At the end of the day" >>

Why Are United States Taxpayers Funding Legal Insurance For Wrongdoing By Federal Employees?

Interesting story by Scott Shane in Sunday’s New York Times on the liability insurance carrier Jose Rodriquez, former head of the CIA Directorate of Operations (Clandestine division) and the other spooks involved in the torture tapes destruction, apparently as well as a whole boatload of other Administration officials and agents (an astounding 32,000 of them), are relying on.

Like a growing number of C.I.A. employees, Mr. Rodriguez, former head of the agency’s clandestine service, had bought professional liability insurance from Wright & Company. The firm, founded in 1965 by a former F.B.I. agent, is now paying his mounting legal bills.

The standard Wright policy costs a little less than $300 a year. The government pays half the premium for all supervisors and certain other high-risk employees, a group that includes hundreds of C.I.A. officers, including everyone at the agency involved in counterterrorism or counterproliferation.
…
When Al Qaeda attacked the United States in 2001, Wright & Company was insuring about 17,000 federal employees against the legal hazards of their work. Today, that total has nearly doubled to 32,000, Wright executives say, spurred in part by a spate of lawsuits, investigations and criminal prosecutions related to mistreatment of detainees from Iraq to Guantánamo Bay, an immigration crackdown and other aftershocks of 9/11.
…
The standard Wright policy pays up to $200,000 in legal fees for administrative matters like investigations by Congress or an inspector general, or cases involving demotion or dismissal. An additional $100,000 is available for legal fees in criminal investigations, and the policy pays up to $1 million in damages in a civil suit.

As the subject of both Congressional and criminal investigations, Mr. Rodriguez, former head of the C.I.A.’s clandestine service, has $300,000 in coverage for legal fees. How long that might last is anybody’s guess. He has hired Robert S. Bennett, a Washington lawyer who represented President Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones sexual misconduct lawsuit and whose standard rate was described by colleagues as more than $900 an hour.
…
The videotape case has brought claims for legal representation from several C.I.A. employees other than Mr. Rodriguez, said Mr. Lewis, who declined to name them. George J. Tenet, the former director of central intelligence; Scott W. Muller, the agency’s former general counsel; and John A. Rizzo, the current acting general counsel, are among those who have retained counsel. Spokesmen for the three men declined to comment.
…
A new possible source of reimbursement for legal fees was created in 2006 by the Military Commissions Act, which requires the government to pay lawyers for C.I.A. and military officers facing lawsuits or criminal investigations for “authorized” actions involving detention of suspected terrorists. Whether the destruction of the videotapes would qualify is uncertain, but lawyers in the matter are studying the question. (Emphasis added)

Couple of thoughts here. In relation to the first portion bolded, what is the government doing underwriting insurance to cover wrongdoing by it’s employees? Is this a proper use of taxpayer money? Did Congress authorize this; if not, who did?

As to the second bolded portion, we know that Congress did pass the contemptible Military Commissions Act in 2006 thanks in a large part to the disingenuous actions of St. John McCain, Lindsay “Huckleberry” Graham, Mr. Liz Taylor John Warner and Harry Reid; not to mention the deception and outright lies of the Bush Administration. That aside, the question still remains, is this a proper use of taxpayer money? For 32,000 governmental employees? For my money, it most certainly is not.

There's more: "Why Are United States Taxpayers Funding Legal Insurance For Wrongdoing By Federal Employees?" >>

The Torture-Tapes Story Isn't Fading Away

It isn't like the Bush administration needed yet another criminal investigation, but that's what they got earlier today when Attorney General Michael Mukasey appointed an outside prosecutor to head up a criminal investigation into the destruction of the tapes.

Last month, the CIA admitted that tapes of operatives using "harsh interrogation techniques" against torturing two terrorism suspects had been destroyed. The admission of the destroyed video evidence sparked a congressional inquiry and a preliminary investigation by the Department of Justice.

''The Department's National Security Division has recommended, and I have concluded, that there is a basis for initiating a criminal investigation of this matter, and I have taken steps to begin that investigation,'' Mukasey said in a statement released Wednesday.

The A.G. has tapped John Durham, an AUSA from Connecticut who has a reputation as a tough, no-nonsense, publicity-averse career prosecutor to oversee the case. He is best known for his role in sending several corrupt public officials to prison, including former Republican Governor Jim Rowland in 2005.

[Keep reading]

John L. Helgerson, Inspector General for the CIA, who worked with the DoJ on the preliminary investigation has recused himself from the criminal investigation. Additionally, the US Attorney's office for the Eastern District of Virginia (where Langley is physically located) has also been recused.

Mukasey did not take the additional step of naming Durham a Special Prosecutor, but instead designated him the "acting U.S. Attorney" in the case. Durham will not have the same level of autonomy in conducting his investigation that Patrick Fitzgerald had in the Plame outing and treason trial of "Scooter" Libby.

The CIA has already acquiesced to congressional investigators, who have begun reviewing documents and files, and the former head of the Clandestine Services, Jose Rodriguez, has been summoned to appear before the House Intelligence Committee on January 16. Rodriguez was the official who ultimately gave the "destroy" order, after much internal wrangling by administration lawyers.

''The CIA will of course cooperate fully with this investigation as it has with the others into this matter,'' agency spokesman Mark Mansfield said.

Here is hoping that this investigation goes right to the door of the "fourth branch"...

Cheney in an orange jumpsuit would be a sight to behold - one that might make me pass out from a schaddenfreude overdose!

There's more: "The Torture-Tapes Story Isn't Fading Away" >>

Was it Arrogance? Was it Hubris? Whatever it was, somebody needs to GO TO JAIL!!!

Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Go directly to jail.

The CIA withheld evidence from the 9/11 Commission, and then destroyed it.

In interviews this week, the two chairmen of the commission, Lee H. Hamilton and Thomas H. Kean, said their reading of the report had convinced them that the agency had made a conscious decision to impede the Sept. 11 commission’s inquiry.

Mr. Kean said the panel would provide the memorandum to the federal prosecutors and congressional investigators who are trying to determine whether the destruction of the tapes or withholding them from the courts and the commission was improper.

A C.I.A. spokesman said that the agency had been prepared to give the Sept. 11 commission the interrogation videotapes, but that commission staff members never specifically asked for interrogation videos.

The review by Mr. Zelikow does not assert that the commission specifically asked for videotapes, but it quotes from formal requests by the commission to the C.I.A. that sought “documents,” “reports” and “information” related to the interrogations.

Mr. Kean, a Republican and a former governor of New Jersey, said of the agency’s decision not to disclose the existence of the videotapes, “I don’t know whether that’s illegal or not, but it’s certainly wrong.” Mr. Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, said that the C.I.A. “clearly obstructed” the commission’s investigation.

What? The? Hell???

I'm not the only one mad as hell about the obstruction of justice - Kean and Hamilton - whose authority to investigate the events of September 11 was granted by both the White House and Congress - are pissed off, too.

And so is Pat Leahy.

On Friday, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter to AG Mukasey and DNI McConnell, specifically instructing them to "preserve and produce to the committee all remaining video and audio recordings of 'enhanced interrogations' of detainees in American custody." The letter was signed by Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Specter, and requested an extensive search of the White House, CIA facilities and other intelligence agencies to determine whether or not other recordings exist that might show interrogation techniques “including but not limited to waterboarding.”

Officials speaking for the government have steadfastly maintained that the evidence destroyed in 2005 were the only recordings made by employees of the CIA, but the lie was put to this claim in September when attorneys who represent the government informed a federal judge in Virginia that three more recordings of detainee interrogations had been discovered.

As easy as it is to believe the absolute worst about this craven cabal, I keep reminding myself that at their very core, they are a bunch of Mayberry Machiavellis, and they are completely out of their depth. If they weren't incompetent, we would really be screwed.

[That's all, folks...]

There's more: "Was it Arrogance? Was it Hubris? Whatever it was, somebody needs to GO TO JAIL!!!" >>

White House attorneys were involved in discussing the CIA torture tapes

All that's missing are the inmate numbers

At least four White House attorneys were involved in discussions about the destruction of the CIA torture tapes.

The accounts indicate that the involvement of White House officials in the discussions before the destruction of the tapes in November 2005 was more extensive than Bush administration officials have acknowledged.

Those who took part, the officials said, included Alberto R. Gonzales, who served as White House counsel until early 2005; David S. Addington, who was the counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney and is now his chief of staff; John B. Bellinger III, who until January 2005 was the senior lawyer at the National Security Council; and Harriet E. Miers, who succeeded Mr. Gonzales as White House counsel.

It was previously reported that some administration officials had advised against destroying the tapes, but the emerging picture of White House involvement is more complex. In interviews, several administration and intelligence officials provided conflicting accounts as to whether anyone at the White House expressed support for the idea that the tapes should be destroyed.

One former senior intelligence official with direct knowledge of the matter said there had been “vigorous sentiment” among some top White House officials to destroy the tapes. The former official did not specify which White House officials took this position, but he said that some believed in 2005 that any disclosure of the tapes could have been particularly damaging after revelations a year earlier of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

[Keep reading...]

Other officials have maintained that no one at the White House made the case for destroying the case, but quickly add that no White House lawyer ever specifically advised that destroying the videos would violate the law.

The Department of Justice is (perfunctorily) mounting an internal investigation into the destruction of the tapes. Officials who spoke to the New York Times did so under conditions of anonymity because of that ongoing investigation.

Spokespersons for the president and the vice president, as well as the CIA, cited the investigation and declined to comment.

The new information was revealed on Tuesday when Federal Judge Henry Kennedy ordered the attorneys involved appear before him on Friday at 11:00 a.m. to answer questions about the destroyed videos. Kennedy was the judge that issued the order to preserve evidence, presumably that would include the tapes, as part of a lawsuit brought on behalf of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The tapes documented the "harsh treatment" (civilized folk call it what it is: torture) of two suspected al Qaeda terrorists in CIA custody. .

New details also emerged on Tuesday about the role of Jose (I smell a fall guy here...) Rodriguez Jr., who headed the clandestine branch and has thus far been fingered as the guy who gave the burn order. The anonymous officials said that prior to Rodriguez issuing a secret cable ordering the destruction, he was advised, in writing, by two CIA lawyers, Steven Hermes and Robert Eatinger, that he indeed had the authority to order the tapes be destroyed and that no laws would be violated.

The CIA refused to allow Mr. Eatinger or Mr. Hermes to comment.

The two agency lawyers did, however, inform the top lawyer at the CIA, John A. Rizzo, about the legal advice they had given Rodriguez.

Mr. Rodriguez did not inform either Mr. Rizzo or the CIA director at that time, Porter Goss, before he issued the cable ordering the tapes be destroyed. “There was an expectation on the part of those providing legal guidance that additional bases would be touched,” said one government official with knowledge of the matter. “That didn’t happen.”

Robert Bennet, attorney for Mr. Rodriguez is adamant that his client was not a lose cannon who ordered evidence be destroyed on his whim. “He had a green light to destroy them,” Mr. Bennett insists.

The tapes were never sent back to Langley. Instead, they were kept in the safe in the bureau office in Thailand, where the interrogations took place. Senior officials in the clandestine service had been chomping at the bit to have the tapes destroyed, starting in 2003, citing concern that the budding Torquemada's on the tapes could face legal or physical jeopardy should the content of the tapes be leaked.

Prior to the revelations in the Times today, the only official previously reported to have been involved in discussions about the tapes was Harriet Meiers, who served as White House counsel after Alberto Gonzales became the Attorney General in 2005. Ms. Meiers' involvement is sketchy - some sources say she was not part of the discussions prior to 2005, but others insist she was in the loop as early as 2003.

The only thing we know for sure (besides the fact that this is the most corrupt and feckless administration in the history of the republic) is that the issue is not going away. In fact, it seems to be ramping up.

To which I say "Good! It's about damned time! Can we impeach Dick Cheney now?"

There's more: "White House attorneys were involved in discussing the CIA torture tapes" >>

The CIA torture-tape case isn't going away

In a terse, one-sentence order issued Tuesday, Federal Judge Henry H. Kennedy rejected the Justice Department's appeal to let DoJ cover up investigate the destruction of videotapes that showed the torture interrogation of terrorism suspects.

Instead of rolling over and playing dead for the DoJ, Kennedy ordered the attorneys to appear before him at 11:00 a.m. Friday. He offered no hint at what he might ask the attorneys, or why the order was issued.

Judge Kennedy is not likely to be too inclined toward sympathy for the administrations position, however - in 2005, he personally issued the order to the administration to maintain "all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay."

Five months after Kennedy's original order was issued, the CIA destroyed the videos anyway, and DoJ threw up a feeble smokescreen, asserting that the videos weren't covered, since the interrogation didn't take place at Guantanamo, but instead was conducted at a secret CIA "black site" in Thailand.

So now we have one pissed-off Federal Judge, and pressure mounting for a Special Prosecutor to look into the matter. And an issue that is not going to go away any time soon.

[That's all, folks...]

There's more: "The CIA torture-tape case isn't going away" >>

Mukasey in the Hot Seat

During his confirmation hearings last fall, new Attorney General Michael Mukasey pledged to act independently and swore that he would not hesitate to pursue investigations that might displease the Bush administration.

A month in, he is faced with calls for an investigation into the destruction of video of interrogations of terror suspects that show the men being tortured. Such an investigation would delve into the heart of darkness itself, and expose some of the most closely guarded secrets of the Bush administration, highlighting the "aggressive interrogation" favored - nay lusted after - by the small men in the administration for what it is: Torture.

Torture is a crime against humanity, under treaty as well as international statute.

Last week, Senator Dick Durbin (D - IL) officially requested the Attorney General open an investigation into the destruction of the tapes. "The CIA apparently withheld information about the existence of these videotapes from official proceedings, including the 9/11 Commission and a federal court," Durbin charged in the letter he sent to Mukasey.

But this story just keeps getting weirder and weirder:

Justice officials refused to comment on what the new A.G. will do, but White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said that if he does open an investigation, the White House would support him. The videotapes, made in 2002, showed the questioning of two high-level Qaeda detainees, including logistics chief Abu Zubaydah, whose interrogation at a secret cell in Thailand sparked an internal battle within the U.S. intelligence community after FBI agents angrily protested the aggressive methods that were used. In addition to waterboarding, Zubaydah was subjected to sleep deprivation and bombarded with blaring rock music by the Red Hot Chili Peppers. One [FBI] agent was so offended he threatened to arrest the CIA interrogators, according to two former government officials directly familiar with the dispute. [emphasis added]

Yes. You read that right. An FBI agent was so put off by what he witnessed, he threatened to take the CIA interrogators into custody. And when an FBI agent threatens to arrest CIA agents,it is safe to say that the CIA agents have definitely crossed a bright line.

[Keep reading...]

Officials with the CIA claim that the decision was made three years ago to destroy the tapes. The "reason" the CIA gives for the destruction is laughable: The identity of the torturers interrogators might pose a security risk if the tapes were to leak.

Please.

Spare me.

The identity of the interrogators might pose an incarceration risk.

And if they were acting on orders from the White House, they would most likely say so before they went to prison for a long time for committing war crimes.

The CIA destroyed the tapes in spite of requests for records of interrogations by multiple entities, includign the Senate Intelligence Committee and the 9/11 Commission. Representative Jane Harman, then the ranking Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee had also submitted a written directive that videos of interrogations be preserved.

Additionally, in the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui , defense attorneys requested any video of interrogations, but the CIA told a Federal judge that no videos existed. (Got Perjury? Hows about Obstruction of Justice?)

A thorough investigation into the destruction of the video tapes by the Justice Department would be undertaken with one goal: Find out who issued the orders and make that person accountable. Porter Goss was the CIA Director at the time, and thought he had an "understanding" with ops officials that the tapes would be preserved. He reportedly was extremely unhappy when he learned that the tapes had been destroyed. Meantime, Jose Rodriguez, who as head of the Clandesting Service at the time and issued the destroy order has a reputation as a "loyal subordinate" who would never have taken it upon himself to make such a decision.

Whoever ordered that the tapes be destroyed, all eyes are on Mukaey now.

There's more: "Mukasey in the Hot Seat" >>

Waterboarding update – maybe Mike Hayden needs a taste

First, if the White House has been court-ordered not to destroy torture-related evidence, it’s a clear lie for Bush to say “I didn’t know anything about waterboarding.”

Second, I posted earlier this week that third-party countries that cooperate in CIA renditions might have more tapes. Well, we don’t know that yet, but the fact that the waterboarding incidents occurred in other countries was the legal loophole the Spook Shack used to avoid court order about not destroying the tapes:

(T)he tapes themselves were never brought onto U.S. territory; they were kept, and later destroyed, at a secret location overseas. At one point portions of the tapes were electronically transmitted to CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., so a small number of officials there could review them. A counterterrorism source, who also asked for anonymity when discussing this subject, said that there was no reason to believe that any recordings of such an electronic feed still exist.

That said, I’m of the opinion that more stuff still does exist overseas in black-site countries, and, as I posted earlier, that the Spook Shack likely would have transferred technical physical custody to torture partners as an extra layer of legal CYA at some point.

Hell, for that case, maybe individual CIA agents went Abu Ghraib and whipped out their own cell-phone cameras or something.

Anyway, whether any more such tapes exist or not, here’s how the Clusterfucked Idiots’ Agency’s stance on the tapes we know once existed all played out:

The CIA destroyed the tapes in November 2005. That June, U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. had ordered the Bush administration to safeguard “all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay.”

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler issued a nearly identical order that July.

At the time, that seemed to cover all detainees in U.S. custody. But Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the terrorism suspects whose interrogations were videotaped and then destroyed, weren't at Guantanamo Bay. They were prisoners that existed off the books — and apparently beyond the scope of the court's order.

Leading the Head Spook to defend his agency thusly:

CIA director Michael Hayden told the agency in an e-mail this week that internal reviewers found the tapes were not relevant to any court case.

A sweet-and-sour legal bankshot.

But, this thing might not be over:

Attorneys say that might not matter. David H. Remes, a lawyer for Yemeni citizen Mahmoad Abdah and others, asked Kennedy this week to schedule a hearing on the issue.

In legal documents filed in January 2005, Assistant Attorney General Peter D. Keisler assured Kennedy that government officials were "well aware of their obligation not to destroy evidence that may be relevant in pending litigation.”

Assurance from the Department of Justice?

I’ve got BushCo DOJ “assurance” in one hand, and a warm, steaming pile of crap in the other. How do you tell the difference?

It’s simple – the warm, steaming pile of crap still has more substance.

Beyond that, here’s an idea. Let’s waterboard Hayden until he pleas guilty to perjury and/or obstruction of justice, along with former CIA operations chief Jose Rodriguez, the man who signed off on destroying the tapes. And, they admit to any more tapes or other evidence.

It’s called “poetic justice.”

Update: Hayden knew of the existence of the tapes before becoming CIA head:

Hayden said he learned of the terrorist interrogation videotapes more than a year ago in his tenure as principal deputy director of national intelligence, a post he held from April 2005 to May 2006. He said he did not know that the tapes were being destroyed.

There's more: "Waterboarding update – maybe Mike Hayden needs a taste" >>

Are the CIA torture tapes MIA?

I received my No Quarter email last evening that alerted me to a Larisa Alexandrovna question of whether the CIA torture tapes were destroyed in 2005. Larry Johnson responded:

For starters [it] appears that the June 2005 decision of the Italian judge to issue arrest warrants for C.I.A. officers and contractors involved in the kidnapping of Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr in 2003 may have been the precipitating incident convincing Jose Rodriguez that [the] Agency must destroy video tapes of terrorist interrogations. That operation was conducted with the full knowledge and approval of the Italians. If the Italians could flip on us that meant anyone could.

Then Larry laid out an extensive timeline filled with juicy details. A few to note: "Zubaydah is interrogated in Thailand, where the sessions were filmed. He was waterboarded sometime in the May-June 2002 time frame. Enhanced interrogation methods were used and approval for them came from Jim Pavitt... ...Deputy Director of Operations.... ...What we know for certain is that the CIA was keeping the President and his National Security team fully briefed on the methods and results of interrogating Abu Zubaydah. In fact, it is highly likely that George Tenet showed part of the videotape of the interrogation to the President."

That makes WH press secretary Dana Perino another willing shill for the Torturer-in-Chief who said he didn't remember "hearing about the tapes' existence or their destruction before being briefed about it last Thursday." And we can trust him because why?

On May 9, 2003, with regard to United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, Larry wrote, "C.I.A. declares in sworn statement to Judge Leonie Brinkema that it was not recording interrogations of terrorist suspects in any format." Oops! Caught in a flat-out lie. If not for Bush, I'd say with certainty that someone's going to jail. After Scooter Libby, I'm not so confident.

On Nov. 14, 2005, the CIA reaffirmed the "U.S. Government does not have any video or audio tapes of the interrogations of (two terrorist suspects whose names are blacked out)” to the US District Court. Another lie.

Now let's fast forward to the 2007 portion of Larry's timeline that raises doubts about torture tapes having been destroyed.

[Keep reading...]

13 September 2007–C.I.A. notifies the U.S. Attorneys in Richmond, Virginia that it had discovered the videotape of the interrogation of terrorists whose names are blacked out in the declassified letter (see. p. 2 of the letter) [PDF].

19 September 2007–The U.S. Attorneys view the video tape. Attorneys direct the C.I.A. to search its files again for relevant material.

18 October 2007–C.I.A. provides the U.S. Attorneys with an additional video tape and an audio tape of an interrogation. The U.S. Attorneys compare the video tapes with the operational cables (i.e., written reports) reporting the results of the interrogations. They determined that the reports accurately reported what was viewed on the video tape.

This is an important point–the substance of what transpired during those interrogations was given to the Moussaoui defense team.

So. Who did what?

Jose Rodriguez has been fingered as acting unilaterally, but that is not true. He did check with both the IG and the DO’s assigned Assistant General Counsel before destroying the DO’s copies of the tapes. Although Jose is a lawyer, he made the mistake of trusting fellow lawyers, and now is likely to get chopped up in the political meat grinder while trying to clear his name and reputation. The only thing that might save him a bit is that he and Congressman Reyes are buddies, which is what Congressman Reyes may have meant when he told the NYT today that he (Reyes) “was not looking for scapegoats.”...

...Jose Rodriguez did not consult beforehand with Kyle “Dusty” Foggo. However, Jose did inform Dusty subsequently of the advice he received from the OGC’s counsel. Jose may not be in as much trouble as some imagined. If he destroyed the tapes before November 14, [2005] then the C.I.A. told the truth to the judge. The May 2003 date puts the onus on Jim Pavitt and George Tenet rather than Jose Rodriguez. They knew about the tapes and the C.I.A. General Counsel lied to a Federal Judge. Who told whom what then? That’s going to be the interesting question.

An interesting question for Michael Hayden as he testifies before the Senate and House intel committees today and tomorrow.

Where are the tapes the U.S. Attorneys reviewed in September and October of this year? Were they copies of edited versions? What about the Moussaoui defense team? What else is missing besides the tapes and the truth. So many questions yet to be answered.

On Thursday, Hayden told CIA employees that “videotaping stopped in 2002”, but another imprisoned detainee, Muhammad Bashmilah, said he saw cameras "both in his cells and in interrogation rooms, some on tripods and some on the wall." His detention began in 2003 into 2005 before his release. Adding more fuel:

In a related legal action, lawyers representing 11 inmates of the American military detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, filed an emergency motion on Sunday seeking a hearing on whether the government has obeyed a 2005 judge’s order to preserve evidence in their case.

The C.I.A.’s destruction of tapes “raises grave concerns about the government’s compliance with the preservation order entered by this court,” the lawyers, David H. Remes and Marc D. Falkoff, wrote in their motion.

The June 2005 order, signed by Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr., of the United States District Court in Washington, required the government to “preserve and maintain all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment and abuse of detainees” at Guantánamo.

Uh oh. I need to amend my order for a case of popcorn on this story.

Seriously, unless Congress appoints a Special Counsel to investigate the destruction of evidence, including millions of missing WH emails -- so much to probe -- I doubt we'll ever know the unvarnished truth and see justice served to a WH much, much worse than Watergate. Maybe that's the way they like it.

There's more: "Are the CIA torture tapes MIA?" >>

CIA destroys possible waterboarding tapes; where was Congress? Where will Congress be?

The story about how the CIA destroyed videotapes of two al-Qaeda suspects being waterboarded is of course a huge hot potato.

There’s plenty of people commenting on the possible obstruction of justice angle.

What I want to know is, how much did Members of Congress know or not know about these tapes before they were destroyed, and what Congress is going to do now?

As for the first question:

General Hayden said in a statement that leaders of Congressional oversight committees were fully briefed on the matter, but some Congressional officials said notification to Congress had not been adequate.

OK, how sharp of a difference do we have between “fully briefed” and “not adequate,” at least for chairpersons and ranking minority members of House and Senate intelligence committees?

Related to that, how much of a public hashing out of this are we going to get?

If the two top Democrats on the committees had something close to full briefing, where were Jane Harman and Jay Rockefeller? Can’t a Democratic Congressman or Senator leak?

Well, I guess this is, what, chance No. 172 for Congress to actually grow a pair?

There's more: "CIA destroys possible waterboarding tapes; where was Congress? Where will Congress be?" >>

Cheney Torture Toady, And CIA Director, General Michael Hayden Puts A Horse's Head In The Bed Of The CIA Inspector General

From today's New York Times:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 11 — The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, has ordered an unusual internal inquiry into the work of the agency’s inspector general, whose aggressive investigations of the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation programs and other matters have created resentment among agency operatives.

A small team working for General Hayden is looking into the conduct of the agency’s watchdog office, which is led by Inspector General John L. Helgerson. Current and former government officials said the review had caused anxiety and anger in Mr. Helgerson’s office and aroused concern on Capitol Hill that it posed a conflict of interest.

The review is particularly focused on complaints that Mr. Helgerson’s office has not acted as a fair and impartial judge of agency operations but instead has begun a crusade against those who have participated in controversial detention programs.

Any move by the agency’s director to examine the work of the inspector general would be unusual, if not unprecedented, and would threaten to undermine the independence of the office, some current and former officials say.

Frederick P. Hitz, who served as C.I.A. inspector general from 1990 to 1998, said he had no first-hand information about current conflicts inside the agency. But Mr. Hitz said any move by the agency’s director to examine the work of the inspector general would “not be proper.

“I think it’s a terrible idea,” said Mr. Hitz, who now teaches at the University of Virginia. “Under the statute, the inspector general has the right to investigate the director. How can you do that and have the director turn around and investigate the IG?” ...

Ok, lets start off with the admission that I can actually envision a situation where CIA Director Michael Hayden's argument could have some validity. I would think covert foreign intel operations are a very difficult thing to apply standard Inspector General protocols to. But I don't see any validity whatsoever in the situation described here. In the first place, the detention and interrogation (torture) programs are not transitory spy v. spy James Bond deals. They are static programs and locations, really no different than military prisons and interrogations, or FBI work and Federal Prisons, in general character. Tailor made for an independent Inspector General. Secondly, who in the world doesn't believe that seriously malevolent and criminal activity hasn't been the rule, not the exception, in the detention and interrogation programs. The United States Supreme Court has even said so on several aspects; not to mention every monitoring body in the world.

The crux of the issue here though is, even if there was a legitimate argument (again, that just doesn't hold water here), this is an outrageously wrong, improper, unethical, immoral and illegal way to go about addressing it. There are no provisions that permit a subject agency to investigate it's own Inspector General; moreover, the very concept is completely antithetical to the nature and purpose of an IG. The Times article says it is unprecedented; that is probably an understatement. This action by Hayden, undoubtedly undertaken under the direct authority of Vice-President Dick Cheney, is malicious and beyond the pale. With no attempt to use the designated avenues of recourse provided for agencies against their IGs, it is nothing short of putting a severed horse's head in Inspector General Helgerson's bed to let him know the score. A pure attempt to chill, obstruct and threaten the IG's work at the behest and direction of the subjects being investigated.

General Michael Hayden self servingly says not to worry, this is perfectly proper and above board, “His only goal is to help this office, like any office at the agency, do its vital work even better,” For the foregoing reasons, that is a laughable pile of horse manure. One other thought; since when did the jurisdiction of the CIA get expanded to investigation of domestic governmental agencies and officers? Is that part of another secret Bush/Cheney executive order we don't know about? It seems like a new concept, and a pretty malevolent one at that. There is simply no limit to the outrageous, unprecedented and unethical extremes the Bush/Cheney Administration will go to to obstruct and avoid accountability and responsibility for their immoral and illegal conduct. It is time for this to stop.

There's more: "Cheney Torture Toady, And CIA Director, General Michael Hayden Puts A Horse's Head In The Bed Of The CIA Inspector General" >>

A thumb in the eye of the civilized world

To no one's surprise, but the dismay of civilized people the world over, the partisan hacks on the Roberts court have refused without comment to hear a case brought by a German citizen of Lebanese descent who claims he was abducted by CIA agents and spirited to a prison in Afghanistan where he was subjected to torture tactics. His case is the most extensively documented instance of the United States practice of "extraordinary rendition" of terrorism suspects.

The Supremes upheld the unanimous ruling of a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit, which found for the government on the specious grounds of "state secrets."

When the Fourth Circuit refused to hear Mr. al-Masri's case, they had reservations. “We recognize the gravity of our conclusions that el-Masri must be denied a judicial forum for his complaint,” Judge Robert B. King wrote in March. “The inquiry is a difficult one, for it pits the judiciary’s search for truth against the executive’s duty to maintain the nation’s security.” When the Fourth Circuit ruled, Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the action “truly unbelievable” and “reminiscent of third-world countries.”

While today's action by the Supremes, which let the ruling by the Fourth Circuit stand, is not a surprise; it is expected to cast a further chill over the relationship between the United States and Germany, strained over the United States bullheaded persistence in prosecuting a failed policy in Iraq.

...Mr. Masri’s lawyer in Germany, Manfred Gnijdic, said the high court’s
refusal to consider the case sends a message that the United States expects
other nations to act responsibly but refuses to take responsibility for its own
actions.

“We are very disappointed,” Mr. Gnijdic said in an interview with The
Associated Press. “It will shatter all trust in the American justice
system.”

Mr. Masri contended in his suit that he was seized by local law
enforcement officials while vacationing in Macedonia on New Year’s Eve 2003. At
the time, he was 41 years old and an unemployed car salesman.

“They asked a lot of questions — if I have relations with Al
Qaeda, Al Haramain, the Islamic Brotherhood,” Mr. Masri said in a 2005
interview with The New York Times. “I kept saying no, but they did not believe
me.”

After 23 days, he said, he was turned over to C.I.A. operatives, who
flew him to a secret C.I.A. prison in Kabul. There, Mr. Masri said, he was kept
in a small, filthy cell and shackled, drugged and beaten while being
interrogated about his supposed ties to terrorist organizations. At the end of
May 2004, Mr. Masri said, he was released in a remote part of Albania without
ever having been charged with a crime.

The CIA has never admitted to involvement in the al-Masri case, but investigators in Europe have found his account credible and arrest warrents have been issued for 13 CIA agents who have been implicated. While it is unlikely that the Bush administration would have any higher regard for the law in another nation when he doesn't even respect it at home, the existence of the warrants will hamper the ability of the agents to move about Europe.

The Constitution Project, a nonpartisan organization that seeks to focus
attention on constitutional issues, called the Supreme Court’s refusal to take
up the case “profoundly disappointing.”

“The government’s treatment of Mr. El-Masri has been appalling, and the
executive branch should not be permitted to hide its mistakes behind the
so-called state secrets privilege,” said the organization’s senior counsel,
Sharon Bradford Franklin. “Now that the Court has declined to consider this
issue, Congress should immediately take up legislation to reform the state
secrets privilege and clarify that it does not authorize unchecked power to
disregard individual rights.”

Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, who has introduced legislation to ban extraordinary rendition, said today that “the Bush administration reflexively responds with the ‘state secrets’ defense whenever it is caught bending or simply ignoring the law.”

I have taken a few moments to contact my Senators and Representative and encourage them to support or sponsor legislation to rein in the abuses of the State Secrets provision that has become a petticoat under which to hide from accountability. I would encourage you to do the same - and remember to be civil.

And if this utter apostasy, this "fuck you" to the rest of the world, does not highlight the importance of a Democrat making the next Supreme Court appointment, I don't know how to reach you.

There's more: "A thumb in the eye of the civilized world" >>