« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
CIA Increases Legal Liability Insurance
Preparations begin for the end of the Bush administration.
The CIA announced Monday that it will now pay the full cost of legal liability insurance for about two-thirds of the agency workforce....One shift is already looming: A change in administrations could make it more likely lawsuits will be filed against CIA interrogators for a controversial program approved by the Bush White House — the use of harsh interrogation techniques and the secret movement of prisoners, known as extraordinary rendition.
The insurance comes from private companies to cover legal expenses that arise out of actions undertaken in the course of a CIA officer's official duties. It is meant to cover potential litigation expenses including damages. It covers legal expenses associated only with those activities undertaken after liability insurance is taken. The reimbursement program began in 2000.
Agency Director Michael Hayden on Monday announced that he had expanded the pool of those eligible to be reimbursed for insurance to include all employees involved in covert activities, not just those involved in counterterrorism and counterproliferation.
As the president of one of the companies that provides the insurance to CIA agents and other government officials put it, "The things that help us are any negative events related to the federal government, and there have been plenty.”
Comments (13)
Well, talk about an easy way to out spies.
The CIA has just declared that everyone doing clandestine work will be covered by a third-party insurance provider.
Whoosh - the sound of foreign spies applying for jobs at ARAG a leading third-party legal services provider.
March 17, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a friend who was in the agency during the Church hearings (mid '70's). Though he wasn't involved in anything particularly controversial (or at least he tells me he wasn't), he was told that all agents might get called for these hearings and that they should all get individual counsel. His response was, "I'm not hiring a lawyer with my own money. I don't care if I take the whole agency down with me." I suspect there are a few CIA agents today saying the same thing. It will be interesting to see if the agency (or Republican party) pick pre-selected attorneys to protect those who need protecting.
March 17, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL Great point.
March 17, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love the Bush Admin using tax dollars to insure Federal Employees for violating the law at the behest of the Bush Administration.
March 17, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't this interesting. After the Supreme Court ruled that certain secret-rendition-related lawsuits cannot be litigated because they are "state secrets," look who wants money:
Perhaps someone could explain how the "basis" for the "need" for liability insurance was justified, when the Supreme Court threw out all the civil cases.
- Does someone, despite the Supreme Court ruling, anticipate other civil cases related to "covert activities"?
- Why is there any "concern" that the Supreme Court ruling might be trumped by someone/something else?
- How does this reimbursement duplicate, complement, or overlap the Military Commissions Act provisions which would provide for full reimbursement of all legal defense of US persons brought before international tribunals?
- What evidence exists that a "reasonable" CIA offcer would know about that would raise questions whether the "state secrets"-claim ( as a barrier to civil litigation) might be trumped: New evidence, other war crimes, broader US war crimes abroad?
It appears the CIA agents do not view the Supreme Court ruling as final. Perhaps they are genuinely concerned that something above the SUpreme Court might subject them to litigation.
- What types of "covert, state secret"-things like war crimes do the CIA agents anticipate being targets for litigation?
- Is the insurance designed to only target civil litigation, or does it include prosecutions before The Hague?
If DoJ AG, Congress, and the President have refused to enforce the laws of war against the CIA agents on issues of rendition, war crimes, prisoner abuse, and other illegal covert activity what could the CIA possibly justify to anyone "why" they need to reimburse the CIA agents for.
- Despite claims by the CIA and outside legal counsel that these rendition-related issues are "state secrets" and 'cannot be litigated', does legal counsel anticipate something will change and the CIA agents could be subject to litigation?
The statute of limitations for war crimes is unlimited. The CIA agents appear to view the Supreme Court decision on rendition as only a temporary stop-gap. Rather, it appears they do anticipate new legal efforts which would reject the state secrets claims on the basis of other evidence the CIA agents know has not been destroyed, and remains outside the US government control in other countries.
- Why wasn't the US pressure on Italy and Germany to throw out the cases against the CIA agents sufficient to calm the CIA agents' concerns?
- Is there new evidence that might emerge under a new Administration with a change in DOJ AG that might not block foreign prosecution of CIA agents allegedly complicit with war crimes, prisoner abuse, and other grave breaches of Geneva?
March 17, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is why the Republicans were so adamantly opposed to US participation in the International Court. We reserve the RIGHT to commit war crimes.
What's with Bush and the insurance companies? We can't have government funded child health care because it would cut into the insurance companies pockets. Now, he wants to spend our tax dollars buying insurance to cover agents for carrying out his orders. What kind of insruance does one get that protects them from criminal prosecution?
March 17, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
We can't afford to insure innocent children but we can afford to insure criminals who are employed by the Government?
About the time I think the Repocons have run out ways to scam the taxpayer they amaze me with a new and creative ways to profit from their evil.
And they are the one's who tout their patriotism the loudest.
March 17, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
This demand for insurance raises more questions.
Until the CIA agents are prosecuted for war crimes, it appears the efforts to retaliate against investigators continues. Indeed, it looks as though Michael Todd was knocked. When the UK admitted to involvement with rendition in Diego Garica, this would put pressure on Todd to reopen his investigation and contact those who allegedly lied to him. However, the strange thing about Snowden, UK where Todd was reported to be making his "last" calls: The cell phones were out of order: It's not possible, according to locals, to make calls.
Also, former WH counsel have something to worry about. It appears the efforts to put pressure on the media through subpoenas was insufficient to silence them about the illegal CIA war crimes. Even the NSA is unable to silence the public discussion about the CIA's complicity with legal counsel, outside contractors, and other alleged American war criminals. It remains to be understood, as the war crimes trials against CIA agents loom, how many others are targeted with rendition to silence them about the CIA war crimes.
- Is there a plan of Congress to revisit the CIA's request for liability insurance?
- What kind of issues related to impeachment should the House consider to ensure that CIA agents are not pardoned for illegal actdivity?
- Why not put pressure on Pelosi to conduct impeachment proceedings, and deny the CIA agents any chance of a pardon for violations of international law?
- When does Congress plan to fully cooperate with The Hague in brining the CIA agents to justice?
- When will Congress conduct hearings into the abusive litigation and subpeoans directed at the public and media for commenting on the CIA's illegal war crimes?
- Is there a plan of anyone associated with the DC disciplinary board to review how legal counsel have abused the court process to stifle public discussion related to war crimes?
- What's the plan of the country to review to what extent legal counsel have abused the court process to intimidate, silence, and dissuade the public from commenting publicly on CIA agent's alleged complicity with war crimes; and the connection between lawyer-lobbyists and those financing the election of those refusing to take action on the alleged war crimes?
- Which current and former WH counsel were involved with writing the legal instruments and arrangements that supported the CIA agents illegal activity which violated the laws of war: When will those legal counsel be subjected to prosecution, a disbarment investigation, and a war crimes tribunal for their alleged complicity with providing material support for Geneva violations?
March 17, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does Congress have no say in this what so ever?
March 17, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really the craziest thing is that the Japanese and Chinese still are arguing about rapes from WWII. And there are still active WWII war crimes and litigation occuring to this day.
So the litigation or tort insurance is a poor mitigating measure, or risk analysis tool, when in fact it is the policies and practices that ought to be changed.
There are smaller nations with intelligence agencies that haven't got the natural resources of the super powers, but they put such a high premium on intelligence that they avoid the wars and suceed.
It is the willingness to employ the wrong tool, a hammer if you will, when a lever or screw driver is useful, that creates these scenarios where the intelligence agencies are dragged into a fight, (not a struggle or a conflict) and as intelligence agencies, the forget that the last desperate act of a limited mind is violence.
The insurance is fine, but fails to address the issue.
March 17, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
" Come Watson the game is afoot "
Sherlock Holmes.
All of the war crimes & all the war criminals will be at the Hague in the foreseable future (I pray to God .)
Testing in an earlier post you said an UK investigator got "knocked " - what does that mean "knocked " does that mean he was "whacked" as in killed ?
We really ,really need to iMPEACH Cheney this is where all of this mess started from over at the OVP - wonder if Addington is getting liabilty insurance as well ?
To me this smells of fasicism - and I fear for my country ...
March 18, 2008 5:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
www.votenic.com
Poll Results Now Instant!
New vids, and New Polls Posted Weekly!
March 19, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
www.votenic.com
Poll Results Now Instant!
New vids, and New Polls Posted Weekly!
March 19, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink