« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
The FBI's Hands Off Approach to Torture
Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee yesterday, FBI Director Robert Mueller made it as clear as he could what the FBI's reaction to the CIA's use of waterboarding and other forms of torture in 2002 had been: keep FBI agents out of trouble.
But when House Democrats pressed as to why the FBI hadn't investigated the abuses, Mueller said his hands were tied. The CIA and the Defense Department had the green light. "There has to be a legal basis for us to investigate, and generally that legal basis is given to us by the Department of Justice." Thanks to John Yoo and others in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, the CIA had its "golden shield."
He also testified that in 2002, he'd "reached out" to the Pentagon and the Department of Justice "in terms of activity that we were concerned might not be appropriate -- let me put it that way." Mueller said he couldn't testify as to what the reply was, since it might be classified. Given the fact that a group of senior administration officials had agreed on the use of the techniques, you can guess what the answer was. Here's video:
It's certainly not the first time that the FBI has separated itself from the conduct of CIA and military interrogators. FBI agents involved in the Abu Zubaydah's case have been publicly critical of brutal interrogation techniques that reaped "crap." Newsweek reported that one FBI agent "was so offended [by Zubaydah's treatment] he threatened to arrest the CIA interrogators." Of course, such an arrest could not happen without the Justice Department's say-so -- and it was on the DoJ's authority that the interrogation was taking place.
Back in October, The Los Angeles Times reported that Mueller was suspicious of the legal memos that had authorized the torture and thought they might be overturned. Yoo's memos authorizing torture were ultimately overturned -- but Attorney General Michael Mukasey has made clear that doesn't mean the interrogators who relied on them have anything to worry about. From the Times:
By mid-2002, several former agents and senior bureau officials said, they had begun complaining that the CIA-run interrogation program amounted to torture and was going to create significant problems down the road -- particularly if the Bush administration was ever forced to allow the Al Qaeda suspects to face their accusers in court.Some went to FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, according to the former bureau officials. They said Mueller pulled many of the agents back from playing even a supporting role in the interrogations to avoid exposing them to legal jeopardy, in the belief that White House and Justice Department opinions authorizing the coercive techniques might be overturned.
"Those guys were using techniques that we didn't even want to be in the room for," one senior federal law enforcement official said. "The CIA determined they were going to torture people, and we made the decision not to be involved."
The full transcript of Mueller's exchanges on this with Reps. Steven Cohen (D-TN) and Robert Wexler (D-FL) are below.
COHEN: You say you wouldn't engage in torture, but when you find out that other agencies may be engaged in torture that you believe is illegal, does your protocol include informing those agencies that you believe their actions are illegal?MUELLER: Yes.
COHEN: Who did you inform in that situation?
MUELLER: At points in time, we had reached out to DOD, D.O. Justice and DOJ in terms of activity that we were concerned might not be appropriate -- let me put it that way.
COHEN: And you informed both the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice?
MUELLER: During the period of time in question, after 2000, say, to 2002, there have been times when we have done that, yes.
COHEN: And can you supply us with copies of those letters or memoranda?
MUELLER: I'd have to get back to you on that.
COHEN: We'd appreciate it if you would. I would like to request you to do that.
And what was their response to you?MUELLER: Again, I'm not certain to what extent this is classified. I'd have to get back to you on that in any event.
COHEN: Well, if you could give us a response to this as well, I'd like to know which agencies did not listen to you, Director, and engaged in torture. I think that would be very important for this committee to know, if there's departments -- of defense or justice or any -- or CIA that don't listen to the director of the FBI.
MUELLER: Well, another factor that I think is important to recognize in this -- what constitutes appropriate behavior under circumstances for other agencies is subject to legal opinions from the Department of Justice.
COHEN: Yes, sir, I understand that. I agree with you.
*********
WEXLER: All right.
Mr. Director, an L.A. Times article from October 2007 quotes one senior federal enforcement official as saying, quote, "The CIA determined they were going to torture people and we made the decision not to be involved," end quote.
The article goes on to say that some FBI officials went to you and that you, quote, "pulled many of the agent back from playing even a supporting role in the investigations to avoid exposing them to legal jeopardy," end quote.
My question, Mr. Director -- I congratulate you for pulling the FBI agents back. But why did you not take more substantial steps to stop the interrogation techniques that your own FBI agents were telling you were illegal?
Why did you not initiate criminal investigations when your agents told you the CIA and the Department of Defense were engaging in illegal interrogation techniques? And rather than just simply pulling your agents out of these interrogations, shouldn't you have directed them to prevent any illegal interrogations from taking place?
MUELLER: I can go so far, sir, as to tell you that our protocol in the FBI is not to have been -- not to use coercion in any of our interrogations or our questioning, and we have abided by our protocol.
WEXLER: I appreciate that. What does the protocol say when the FBI knows that the CIA is engaging or the Department of Defense is engaging in an illegal technique? What does the protocol say in that circumstance?
MUELLER: We would bring it up to appropriate authorities and determine whether the techniques were legal or illegal.
WEXLER: Did you bring it up to appropriate authorities?
MUELLER: All I can tell you is that we followed our own protocols.
WEXLER: So you can't tell us whether you brought -- when your own FBI agents came to you and said the CIA is doing something illegal, which caused you to say, "Don't you get involved," you can't tell us whether you then went to whatever authorities...
MUELLER: I'll tell you that we followed our own protocols.
WEXLER: And what was the result?
MUELLER: We followed our own protocols. We followed our protocols. We did not use coercion. We did not participate in any instance where coercion was used, to my knowledge.
WEXLER: Did the CIA use techniques that were illegal?
MUELLER: I can't comment on what has been done by another agency and under what authorities the other agency may have taken actions.
WEXLER: Why can't you comment on the actions of another agency?
MUELLER: I leave that up to the other agency to answer questions with regard to the actions taken by that agency and the legal authorities that may apply to them.
WEXLER: Are you the chief legal law enforcement agency in the United States?
MUELLER: I am head of the -- I am the director of the FBI.
WEXLER: And you do not have authority with respect to any other governmental agency in the United States? Is that what you're saying?
MUELLER: When the authority is given to me to investigate, yes, we do.
WEXLER: Did somebody take away that authority with respect to the CIA?
MUELLER: Nobody has taken away the authority. I can tell you what our protocol was and how we followed that protocol.
WEXLER: Did anybody take away the authority with respect to the Department of Defense?
MUELLER: I'm not certain what you mean.
WEXLER: Your authority to investigate an illegal torture...
MUELLER: There has to be a legal basis for us to investigate, and generally that legal basis is given to us by the Department of Justice. Any interpretations of law is given to us by the Department of Justice, generally the OLC.
WEXLER: But apparently your own agents made a determination that the actions by the CIA and the Department of Defense were illegal, so much so that you authorized --
ordered your agents not to participate. But that's it.MUELLER: I've told you what our protocol was. And I have indicated that we have adhered to our protocol throughout.
WEXLER: My time is up. Thank you very much, Mr. Director.













John Yoo might be acceptable to Berkeley, but he is a monster.
April 24, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The FBI is the White Houses's law enforcer, they get their orders from the Administration...need I say more..?
April 24, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The CIA is the real tool. Mueller's actually had a few shining moments (pulling his agents when they told him these interrogations were illegal, John Ashcroft's hospital bed, and his testimony about the hospital affair) that speak well of his leadership at FBI.
April 24, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://indepthleft.blogspot.com/2008/04/hot-off-wire-today-apparently-cia-has.html
April 24, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What does the FBI do when faced with evidence of torture by the U.S. government?"
What the rest of us do: duck and cover, and count down the seconds until these thugs are gone.
April 24, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let’s say it all together: Misprision of felony.
Mueller was USA in San Francisco prior to taking over the FBI. He spent 12 years in DoJ and became the chief of the criminal division in SF. Just being a good soldier I guess?
April 24, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't Mueller get his job because he took care of Bush Sr during Iran Contra?
And, without getting too far away from Mueller, wasn't it Mitch Wade's MZM that was given the contract (at least in Iraq) to not only provide interpreters, but to record the interrogations.
I'm assuming that record means video. Did the CIA in essence destroy MZM's tape?
April 24, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It is my protocol not to tell anything to the representatives of the American people who I've sworn to serve and who pay my substantial salary."
I'm starting to feel like everyone associated with this admin deserves a firing squad. Let's just line them at the city dump.
April 24, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's good! "deserves a firing [squad]"
metaphorically of course.
They will end up on the garbage dump of history, the whole nefarious bunch.
April 24, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mueller did answer the question about whether he brought up the issue with the appropriate authorities.
He says 'protocol says to do it' and 'I followed the protocol.' That is a Yes. Cohen is on the right track by asking for follow-up and copies of those letters or memoranda.
Mueller helped push this to where Bush already planned to take it years ago (Miers' nomination is proof) - to the Supreme Court.
Mueller done good/did well.
April 24, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dodge, dodge, dodge.
There was enough concern/evidence of illegal conduct presented to Mueller that he protected/prevented his agents from gathering more information. And if he does know or have evidence of torture, he's not about to be a song bird against the CIA because there will certainly be retaliation back by the CIA.
Perhaps the FBI itself has engaged in some shady goings on?
As to the Department of Justice, it has become nothing but a shill for George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the Bush administration.
One has to wonder just who in the hell is running the country. Congress? Congress can't get a clear answer from anybody about anything.
And it will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules on any challanges of executive power vs. the need to know of Congress.
Frankly, I won't be surprised to see Congress lose. Forget the law, the Supreme Court has become just another political entity.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
April 24, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the end of the day, doesn't this completely eviscerate any argument that a "reasonable person" could, in good faith, have relied on the DOJ torture memos? If I'm a CIA guy, and I know that FBI agents, who have read the same preposterous Yoo memos that I have, don't believe they are legally sound and fear that relying on them may land them in prison -- well, knowing that, shouldn't I as a "reasonable person" have very, very serious second thoughts about "just following orders" and torturing?
April 24, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Their defense didn't work in 1946 and it won't work in 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles
Principle I
Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.
Principle II
The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.
Principle III
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
April 24, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are these bastards still walking around? It is not enough for me to know that they will burn in hell for their actions; I want them to languish in a dungeon first. This is such a travesty of the Constitution and the laws of the US. OUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ARE CRIMINALS! They have made the US a joke, a very very very bad joke. These Congressional hearings are like showing a dog a bone and then not letting him have it. Is anyone going to stop them? Apparently not. It is becoming more and more apparent how corrupt the Bush Abomination really is; no one seems to have the juice or the guts or the level of outrage necessary to just walk to the DOJ, the DOD and the White House, for godssake, and drag the SOBs to the Bastille. Yes, Sen, Wexler, now we know what they did. What the hell are you going to do about it?
April 25, 2008 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." Not sure I like the sound of *that* loophole.
I appreciate that Mueller was in a tough position, but really, what he did was CYA himself and his employees.
I wish some congressman had asked him whether he thought that by having done so, he had discharged his full duty to the people of the United States and their constitution.
April 25, 2008 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
The ICC has established its headquarters in The Hague, The Netherlands. The Court is currently located at ‘de arc’.
Address: Maanweg 174, 2516 AB, The Hague, Netherlands.
Postal Address: Po Box 19519, 2500 CM, Den Haag, Netherlands.
If you want to do something constructive write them, don't just be an armchair activist.
How many more innocent people have to die before the noxicons are gone? Why do you guys send ANYONE in Congress a plug nickel? Remember DETAINEES (kidnap victims have DIED) - if it were another country violating human rights you'd all be screaming bloody murder. The US has NO EXCUSES for the way it is acting and the rest of the world grows weary waiting for the US to CHANGE.
April 25, 2008 5:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
These [2] two statements do not reconcile:
- What about the DOJ OLC memoranda that was a green light for CIA and DOD, but appeared to be a red light for the FBI?
- What actions did the President take against FBI agents who concluded the DOJ OLC memoranda was insufficient protection; did any FBI agents who refused to cooperate with the White House-CIA-DoD face any reprimands?
- Why didn't the FBI take the "green light" from the same people CIA and DOD were; who in DoJ or FBI arrrived at a different legal conclusion than DOJ OLC; and why didn't the DOJ OLC memo trump these FBI legal warnings or concerns?
- Who did a comparison of the DOJ OLC memoranda giving a greend light to DOD/CIA; and reviewed the FBI memoranda concluding the oppostie about the same activity; when did White House counsel see both different legal views, and how did the President reconcile these differences?
- What did FBI know about the POW treatment that, despite the "green light," they refused to permit their agents to do?
- What about the "Green light" for the CIA/DoD, appeared to be a red light for FBI?
- Why is the FBI reaching a differenct conclusion about the same DOJ OLC memoranda than CIA and DoD?
- Did the FBI learn of any violations by CIA and DoD?
- Give the FBI's concern with the POW treatement, why are they reluctant to review whether or not the DOJ OLC legal memoranda is illegal; or has illegally permitted CIA and DOJ to review this activity against POWs?
April 26, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The White House has been implicated in blocking legally required war crimes investigations, and the intimidation of jury members.
April 26, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
MUELLER committed the crimes of silence.
Mueller has done this for along time.
Minneapolis FBI, Sioux Falls, SD FBI and SD US ATTORNEY all joined a conspiracy to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE when the refused to turn over EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE FROM THE COERCED POLYGRAPH EXAMINATIONS OF DR. MARK GORDON (a close friend of mine, whose civil liberties were violated by SF FBI, YPD, YCSAO, SFPD, MCSAO,).
The info from Gordon's polygraphs...disputed DAVE NELSON'S BOGUS EX PARTE EAVESDROPPING APPLICATIONS IN JUDGE PETER GREGORY'S COURT.
When Judge Gregory found out (NELSON told him, after Nelson got my memo that I posted at Copwatch.com) he threw a fit. NELSON asked and amended the record, and also wanted Judge Gregory's judicial copy of the false affadavit in support of an eavesdropping warrant.
Gregory refused...............and became a targeted terrorist who was illegally stalked (PIN HOLE SPY CAMERAS IN HOME, GPS TRACKING DEVICE WITH AUDIO CAPABILITY IN CAR, BREAKINS TO HOME, KEYSTROKE LOGGER ON HOME AND OFFICE COMPUTER....ETC.).
Gregory got entrapped..........and melted down and resigned his judgeship. NELSON worked with who benefitted? NSA? DOD's CIFA? CIA? SF FBI? All had problems using illegally obtained info in violation of Title 18 USC sections 2510--et al.
DISSEMINATION OF ILLEGALLY OBTAINED INFO from NSA TSP, NSA 902nd Counterintel Group, CIA.....to fed, state, and local law enforcement is A FED CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE TITLE 18 USC SECTION 2510--2517.
CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE.....?
Looking at my complaints (SD Bd Med and Osteop Examiners Complaint naming two med doctors who helped the CIA/FBI/NSA Torture and mind control chipping of a Sen Jud Comm witness named THOMAS S. BEAN)....you can see Mueller's crimes.
Who stole the x-rays Bob?
Clear violation of Title 18 USC sections 241, 242, 1512, 1513....SO....FBI UNDER DOJ GUIDELINES FOR INVESTIGATIONS Had the pretext to open a preliminary inquiry by SF FBI agent STEVEN PLUTA who actually joined the conspiracy by "illegally seizing the x-rays" to prevent medical care?
April 28, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sounds like Mueller's punk excuses are:
1)--WE DON'T INVESTIGATE THE "TAMPERING WITH A SEN JUD COMM WITNESS NAMED THOMAS S. BEAN" because his ten page memo to Senator Grassley included a review of the breadth and scope of THE NSA TSP which is a "law enforcement assistance" vigalante group that HELPS FED, STATE, AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT disseminate and launder illegally obtained info from wiretapping, breakins, harassment, assaults, terroristic threats, pin hole spy cameras, etc, etc.
TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS is codified at TITLE 18 USC SECTIONS 1512M 1513 and also invokes TITLE 18 USC SECTIONS 241, 242 analysis.
2)--Nobody can get to court to subpoena Sioux Falls FBI counter intel agent STEVEN PLUTA...so...nobody knows if "FBI USES THEIR BADGE TO SEIZE MY X RAYS SHOWING THE NSA MIND CONTROL CHIP" that was illegally installed in my skull while I was asleep and illegally sedated?
3)--NOBODY HAS HEARD DR. GORDON TESTIFY...so nobody at Senate or House...has a clue what the FBI did, how they did it, where they got the info, and whether or not AN INNOCENT MEDICAL DOCTOR NAMED MARK GORDON WAS FRIED IN HIS OWN HOME WITH A DOD DEW USING MICROWAVE RADIATION to commit murder, harassment, felony assault, etc.
A MINNEAPOLIS FBI RELUCTANT, COERCED, COOPERATING WITNESS NAMED MARK GORDON was forced to work for Minneapolis FBI (who got him harassed at his job site, got him harassed by SD Med Board probation officer, stalked interstate with FBI gangbanging snitch directed to spit in Gordon's face at OK CITY gas station, slandered to Texas Med Board to prevent employment).
THEN....FBI knew about pin hole spy camera monitoring of Gordon in his apartment across the street from St. Paul Fed Building...where FBI coerced Gordon to take polygraph exams.
Exculpatory info from polygraphs were not given to Dave Nelson at MCSAO...who had BRADY VIOLATIONS AND MATERIAL FALSIFICATIONS IN HIS EX PARTE WARRANT APPLICATIONS that targeted me, THOMAS S. BEAN, formerly of Austin, Texas, and Sioux Falls, SD.
WHEN DO THE DEMS WANT ME TO TESTIFY WITHOUT IMMUNITY AND WITHOUT A SUBPOENA?
SEN LEAHY HAS SHOWN NO INTEREST IN DOING OVERSITE?
HOW ABOUT THE HOUSE DEMS?
ANYBODY WANT TO ALERT HOUSE DEMS ABOUT MY WILLINGNESS TO TESTIFY TRUTHFULLY ABOUT BEING TORTURED BY FBI, CIA, NSA..........AFTER I CONTACTED SEN GRASSLEY AT US SEN JUD COMM?
ANYBODY want to read the ten page memo to Grassley that resulted in FBI HQ flipping on the NSA TSP program when they leaked to NY TIMES (Risen being investigated for leak recently...right?).
April 28, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
While under investigation and counterintel surveillance by sioux Falls, SD, counterintel special agent STEVEN PLUTA....I had pin hole spy cameras in my home monitored by ROBERT DALE LILLY.
1) This is a clear violation of Title 18 USC section 2510 known as TITLE III, the fed wiretap and bugging statute.
2) DR. MARK GORDON was also under surveillance with pin hole spy cameras while working for MINNEAPOLIS FBI as a reluctant, coerced cooperating witness.
Prior to the flipping of Dr. Gordon...his brother RICHARD GORDON (former SD US Sen Daschle's ex chief of staff) was "illegally harassed by SD Atty Gen MARK BARNET who opened a bogus politically motivated INDIAN VOTER FRAUD INVESTIGATION that was used by FBI HQ to smear Rich Gordon in FBI's favorite punk clown act, THE NY TIMES (got FBI leak on Wen Ho Lee).
RICHARD GORDON mysteriously died from a brain tumor.
The context that you don't understand is....FBI/NSA/DOD/CHENY had my email to Mark Gordon in which I said, "...I'll get these guys into a congressional hearing focusing on THE CANADIAN WARRANT FOR MIAMI FBI AGENT TERRY NELSON'S DRUG PIPELINE IN MONTANA with FBI hitman MIKE CHUCKIE PETER'S NUMEROUS MURDERS OF WITNESSES.
That's one of the reasons we got a War Commissions Act passed that "...effectively suspends the constitution to allow any kind of torture and murder..." within the descretion of Cheney if he wants to neutralize and obstruct THE US SENATE.
Later...after I contacted Sen Grassley with a ten page memo followed by NSA TSP being outed....I GOT CHIPPED WITH AN RFID MIND CONTROL CHIP SURGICALLY INSTALLED IN MY SKULL WHILE I WAS ASLEEP IN MY OWN HOME.
This was after I submitted a 47 page US DOJ OIG Complaint/FBI OPR complaint?
TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS by torturing someone?
MUELLER DOESN'T THINK HE HAS THE PEROGATIVE UNDER DOJ GUIDELINES TO OPEN A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION?
3) After MINNESOTA US ATTY THOMAS HEFFLEFINGER read my posts on the chipping.....he resigned mysteriously in disgust....and a year later, 4 ass. US Atty in Minnesota also resigned?
4) Prior to Hefflefinger's resignation....SD US ATTY MICHELLE TAPKEN ran a brief grand jury investigation into my complaint. This was SHUT DOWN AND OBSTRUCTED BY CHENEY'S AIDS MIERS AND BOLTEN who colluded with SD ATTY GEN LARRY LONG who announced a crim investigation targeting MICHELLE TAPKEN'S SON?
5) During the get Gonzo hearings...I contacted Schumer and Leahy with this tip to no avail?
But...uh...what was the final straw that put Gonzo down?
Did Schumer and Leahy use the South Dakota info?
April 29, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink