Torture: no brainer-no biggie
by digby
Jason Leopold of VICE News says he’s got a hold of the Executive Summary of the Torture Report. Here’s a little excerpt of Leopold’s story:
Feinstein has said her committee’s report is the “definitive review” of the CIA’s interrogation program. But neither the committee nor the CIA have records of the briefings former CIA Director George Tenet and other CIA officials gave to committee leaders in 2002 and 2003, when the CIA said the interrogation program started, according to people familiar with the Senate study.
The committee’s executive summary, however, singles out Michael Hayden, who became CIA director in 2006 and is a staunch defender of the use of EITs. He is accused of lying to the panel during a briefing nearly a decade ago when he sought to revamp the CIA’s interrogation program.
People familiar with the executive summary said the committee obtained records about Hayden’s briefings and carefully reviewed what he told committee members. The report concludes that the former CIA director erroneously told the committee that there were fewer than 100 detainees held captive by the CIA when in fact that number was higher. (The committee’s full report says the CIA detained 119 men). Hayden is also criticized for telling the committee that the enhanced interrogation program was “humane.” The committee’s report concludes that Hayden misrepresented the scope of the program and was not being truthful. Hayden did not respond to VICE News’ request for comment.
Other former CIA officials singled out for criticism in the executive summary include James Pavitt, the CIA’s former deputy director of operations who resigned in 2004; John McLaughlin, a veteran CIA official who served as deputy director and acting director after Tenet resigned; John Rizzo, the CIA’s former general counsel; and Jose Rodriguez, the Director of the National Clandestine Service who ordered the destruction of more than 90 interrogation videotapes, one of which showed a high-value captive being waterboarded. The destruction of the videotapes is what led the Senate Intelligence Committee to launch its review in March 2009.
Although he is identified in the Senate report, the committee did not level any criticism against Stephen Kappes, who was deputy director of the CIA while the interrogation program was up and running. Kappes allegedly played a role in covering up the death of a detainee who froze to death in 2002 at a CIA operated prison in Afghanistan called the “Salt Pit.” The death of the detainee is highlighted in the Senate report.
Kappes had been Feinstein’s choice to head the CIA after Barack Obama was sworn in as president in 2009. Feinstein is on record stating she would not support Panetta’s nomination unless Kappes was named as his deputy, a position he served in until 2010. One former CIA official said Kappes is “Feinstein’s boy,” suggesting that he was spared criticism because of his close relationship with the Intelligence Committee chairwoman.
The committee’s executive summary also accuses the CIA of interfering with Congress’s oversight during the early days of the program by refusing to turn over documents and refusing to grant some committee members access to the black site prisons it operated. But former CIA officials said the agency’s refusals were based on orders it received from the Bush White House.
Sadly, this will likely lead to even greater respect in the Village for the torturers. Hayden will continue to make huge sums of money sharing all his “knowledge” with the private sector (which is like, totally ok and nothing like what those awful reporters did in publishing that “knowledge” for the public to see.) He will be invited into decent company as if he’s some kind of patriotic hero. But then Dick Cheney is still considered a respected elder statesman and he has publicly called the decision to employ water-boarding a “no-brainer”.
The lesson will be that any torture they deem necessary in the future must be legalized by the congress — which shouldn’t be a problem. It rarely is.
Also too, read Emptywheel’s treatment of this bizarre story in the NYT from a week ago which was ostensibly about President Obama’s crisis management. Here’s the excerpt:
Over the Columbus Day weekend, the White House chief of staff, Denis R. McDonough, traveled to the San Francisco home of Senator Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to negotiate personally over redactions in a Senate report on the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation policies after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
That Mr. McDonough would get involved in such an arcane matter puzzles some legislative aides on Capitol Hill, given the other demands on his time.
[snip]
Some liberals have been deeply disappointed with Mr. Obama’s slowness in embracing the Senate report, and have questioned Mr. McDonough’s involvement in redacting it, noting his close ties to the C.I.A. director, John O. Brennan, with whom he served as a deputy national security adviser during the president’s first term. Mr. McDonough said he traveled to Mrs. Feinstein’s home because he views the role of Congress in foreign policy as sacrosanct.“This is an important case study of the role of Congress in foreign policy,” he said, “and I want to get it right.”
Marcy writes:
Forgive me if you spat up your drink, reading about McDonough’s deep respect for Congress’ “sacrosanct” role in foreign policy. What a load of baloney!
But of course McDonough needed to provide an alternate explanation for the real one — the one that explains why McDonough’s investment in the torture report is no surprise.
President Obama’s White House has been heavily involved in the torture declassification process for years, since when National Security Advisor James Jones intervened to keep a short phrase secret making it clear torture was authorized by a Presidential finding, not by OLC memos. This is more of the same (and probably arises out of precisely the same instincts). That’s not in the least news, even if the NYT hasn’t acknowledged what is going on.
The headline for this story should be, “BREAKING White House intervening to protect torture.” Instead, the NYT has taken a No Drama Obama story and turned into a demand for MOAR PANIC.
And this should make your day:
When the Bush administration revealed in 2005 that it was secretly interpreting a treaty ban on “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” as not applying to C.I.A. and military prisons overseas, Barack Obama, then a newly elected Democratic senator from Illinois, joined in a bipartisan protest.
Mr. Obama supported legislation to make it clear that American officials were legally barred from using cruelty anywhere in the world. And in a Senate speech, he said enacting such a statute “acknowledges and confirms existing obligations” under the treaty, the United Nations Convention Against Torture.
But the Obama administration has never officially declared its position on the treaty, and now, President Obama’s legal team is debating whether to back away from his earlier view. It is considering reaffirming the Bush administration’s position that the treaty imposes no legal obligation on the United States to bar cruelty outside its borders, according to officials who discussed the deliberations on the condition of anonymity.
What a good idea, especially since ISIS is consciously using these torture methods as we speak, sanctimoniously pointing to the US precedent as their phony excuse. Let’s give them some more ammunition. Excellent idea.
Meanwhile we have gobbldeygook like this coming from the administration:
Bernadette Meehan, a National Security Council spokeswoman, said Mr. Obama’s opposition to torture and cruel interrogations anywhere in the world was clear, separate from the legal question of whether the United Nations treaty applies to American behavior overseas.
“We are considering that question, and other questions posed by the committee, carefully as we prepare for the presentation in November,” Ms. Meehan said. “But there is no question that torture and cruel treatment in armed conflict are clearly and categorically prohibited in all places.”
So it’s prohibited. Also wrong. But maybe not illegal. Basically, nobody should do it but if they do they shouldn’t be punished for it. Because, well, they just shouldn’t.
Let’s hope the civilized members of the administration win this one.
.