« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Cheney's Campaign To Keep Lawmakers In Line On Torture
The Washington Post reports today that, during 2005, Dick Cheney sat in on several of those CIA torture briefings, in an effort to persuade wavering lawmakers to keep backing the torture program.
The news doesn't really come as a shock -- indeed, some close observers had already guessed that the then-veep was involved in the briefings. But it does add to the picture of Cheney embarking during the middle years of the Bush administration on a focused, stealthy campaign to make sure the US didn't give up what he saw as its right to torture.
There's evidence that Cheney's efforts paid off by keeping GOP members in line on torture. For instance, according to the Post, the first briefing in which Cheney was involved occurred in March 2005 -- two days after the New York Times ran a detailed report on harsh interrogation techniques. One of the lawmakers briefed, Senate Intelligence chair Pat Roberts, had at the time been indicating he might support calls for an investigation of the techniques used on high-level detainees. But it looks like just two days after sitting down with the veep, Roberts announced his opposition to such a probe.
And at another briefing, this one in October 2005, Cheney tried to persuade Sen. John McCain to back off an amendment that aimed to ban practices like waterboarding, and that had broad support in the Senate. (In the end, the measure passed, though in a weakened form.)
This all jibes with what we know about those classified CIA memos which Cheney claims will, if declassified, show that harsh interrogation techniques produced intelligence that saved lives. Those memos, we now know, were dated July 13, 2004, and June 1, 2005.
As former TPMmuckraker Spencer Ackerman has pointed out, those dates are significant.
OK, July 13, 2004. What had happened then? Two important developments. First, in May, CIA Inspector General John Helgerson had completed his review of how the interrogation program worked in practice, a still-classified document that appears to have found the agency had exceeded the boundaries demarcated for it by the 2002 Office of Legal Counsel memo that gave the program legal sanction. And second, in June, the new OLC chief, Jack Goldsmith, revoked that 2002 memoranda, which sent Cheney legal adviser David Addington into a sputtering rage.
And:
Next, June 1, 2005. No, not merely a birthday present for me. That's the day after new OLC chief Steven Bradbury had released the final of his three May 2005 memos that reauthorized the CIA's interrogation program -- rulings that found, among other things, that waterboarding (which the CIA says it had not performed since 2003) did not cause "severe physical pain." All the memos, taken together, determined the CIA's interrogation program was, in every material respect, legal. But it's likely that Cheney recognized this wouldn't be the end of the debate on torture -- either internally, or with Congress and the Courts. Having material from the CIA -- especially a CIA helmed by his ally, Porter Goss -- arguing for the need for the program's continuation would be powerful ammunition for any bureaucratic fight.
In other words, the evidence suggests that Cheney commissioned those memos at specific times in order to bolster his position in fighting efforts to crack down on torture. And today's report in the Post suggests another element of Cheney's campaign -- directly lobbying key lawmakers, at critical times, about what he saw as the vital importance of the program.
Of course, Senators Carl Levin and Russ Feingold have both said they've seen the CIA memos at issue, and that they don't support Cheney's claim that enhanced interrogation got results. Rather, said Levin, they discuss the program for high-value detainees as a whole, which included harsh techniques but also other methods.
Josh
Zachary
The revelations that Cheney was lying about what was in the memos he sought to release is just par for the Bush/Cheney course. They lie and lie until shown to be lying, then they backpedal just to the edge of the lie and say, "No. This is where we've been since the start." And their apologists go right along with it.
From Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda to aluminum tubes to the efficacy of torture, it's been the same thing from day 1 (9/12 as Beck would say).
And yet, their statement are reported by the MSM without any irony at all.
No wonder newspapers are dying. They lost their ability to report long ago.
June 3, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad you see it Cal Gal.
Say it loud.
Although I tend to think the news networks might be even worse.
Keep the faith.
June 3, 2009 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least when you read the dailies you can't see their flagpins.
June 4, 2009 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope Cheney winds up in prison. And the sooner the better.
June 3, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have any intrepid reporters asked if Nancy Pelosi was in on any of those meetings yet? Or are they just too winded from speculating what she knew and when she knew it to bother asking?
June 3, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I stand corrected,
Go figure.
June 3, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Until all of them — ALL OF THEM! — are prosecuted, we are all accomplices.
June 3, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need to al get together so we can come up with a good story to tell our children and grandchildren when they ask why we supported torturing other human beings.
Of course, by that time it will not matter because we won't even be able to describe a democracy to them, since countries which condone torture fail to meet the criteria of a democracy... or up to now, even civilized. I guess we just need to come up with another term for our present system... perhaps "Most Powerful Unaccountable Able To Do Whatever We Want Government".
I'm sure the kids will understand, since it is WE who are teaching them it is okay for the powerful to do whatever they desire without consequence.
I'll just bet most of them will do whatever it takes to be sure THEY are the ones getting on top...
(it's really not that difficult to see why nations fail from within)... IMHO
June 3, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
"a good story to tell our children and grandchildren "
That reminds me of the line attributed to Richard Perle (remember him?) --
"If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy but just wage a total war, our children will sing great songs about us years from now. "
That's just some comment on the internet, but it is suggestive of a mindset and attitude held by PNAC members including Cheney. What your comment reminds me of is that history is usually told by the winners, so naturally if Perle and Cheney succeeded the history would be spun to make them out to have been great heros rating great songs.
June 3, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Afterthought -- Does this explain his daughter in effect singing his praises on TV hour after hour?
June 3, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Let the eagle soar,
Like she’s never soared before.
From rocky coast to golden shore,
Let the mighty eagle soar.
Soar with healing in her wings,
As the land beneath her sings:
'Only God, no other kings.'
Let the mighty eagle soar."
Courtesy of Dominionist war criminal John D. Ashcroft
June 3, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just how and how far in excess, this might be important.
-- attributed (by emptywheel) to book by Mayer (via Ackerman successive links)"the way it was actually used" -- This highlights an important difference between theory and practice. The OLC memos constitute dry theory, the now-destroyed videos constitute evidence of practice. Even if the theory is legally acceptable, significant excesses beyond theory are clearly subject to prosecution.
This raises a related question: Did anyone in the chain of command know, or have reason to believe, that 1) excesses were likely to occur, or 2) that excesses were occuring during the time frame of the use of the techniques?
June 3, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or were excesses an intentional result of the decision to make the 2003 Yoo OLC memorandum "authoritative" and directing that it "supplant the legal analysis being prepared by the Working Group action officers"?
From the Levin report:
My understanding is that in a war zone, Generals are operating in real-time. The war doesn't just pause for three weeks while waiting for authorization or clarification. In those instances, the JAGs are required to determine if an action is legal - not if it was approved for use at GTMO. With a statutory requirement that Yoo is the legal authority - any action up to the limits described by Yoo 2003(anything shy of death) would be completely legal by order of the SecDef. Failure to take any and all legal action would be considered dereliction of duty; placing every soldier in the war zone in one hell of a Catch-22. IMO, that's what Sanchez is talking about when he protests being abandoned on the battlefield.
I am of the opinion that excesses (and policy maker isolation) were the intent of the legal structure. They wanted the actions to occur, but wanted to make sure it was the soldiers on the hook if the shit hit the fan. Initially they tried to get away without any official determination beyond Bybee ... but ultimately the soldiers balked requiring the 2003 shenanigans.
June 3, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I think this passage also speaks to specific intent on the part of policy makers:
June 3, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was Mora on the WG? Apparently he was. I had had the impression he was not ever included, that his role had been to get Rumsfeld to rescind the Dec 2002 authorization. I find it disingenuous of him to claim ignorance of the work product of the group. Why wouldn't he check in on it from time to time? That said, it seems likely that the WG output, cleared or not, was used as a partial basis for Yoo March 2003 memo.
"Likewise, Alberto Mora, the Navy General Counsel and a participant in the Working
Group, said that "[s]oon upon receipt ofthe OLe memo, the Working Group leadership began to
apply its guidance to shape the content of its report.,,927 Mr. Mora stated that "contributions from
the members of the Working Group, including [contributions from his office], began to be
rejected if they did not conform to the OLe guidance.,,928"
June 3, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Mora was working on the draft. The report seems to indicate that dissenters were cut out of the loop about the time it went to final version.
But by my reading you have it exactly backwards (pg. 118ish). The 2003 Yoo memo was produced specifically to shape the WG output. It appears Hadley didn't like their initial legal analysis and went to the OLC for a better opinion and then ordered the WG to follow it's guidance.
June 4, 2009 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is a question of timing. The WG was told to follow some OLC memo, yes. But that was before March 2003, as I read it. Then in March Yoo comes out with another memo, and the WG report is apparently never finalized. Thus I speculate that the initial work by the WG informed the Yoo memo and the WG was dropped. Then Yoo memo informed Rumsfeld's April 2003 approval of whatever techniques.
You're read Levin more closely than I did, so maybe I'm getting the time sequence wrong, but the WG did start long before March 2003 (Jan. I think).
June 4, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get it. You are saying that they muddled the WG output so they could blame the troops on the front lines??
Using the OLC memo as "authoritative" would seem to have the opposite intended effect, that of giving immunity to everyone who relied on it in good faith and conduct (from and in accord with it).
Haynes was clearly a mover and shaker on this. How much he merely passed on from above, I don't know. He'd be a crucial target/witness, imo.
June 3, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure if it provides immunity or not. It did cause every investigation to conclude no wrong doing - but I'm less clear how an investigator would handle it now in light of the Yoo/Bybee memos being withdrawn for improper analysis (Goldsmith's determination, not mine). Are field guys going to be responsible for the real law? If Yoo says murder is legal; I'm not sure good faith absolves someone for committing murder. One thing that might be relevant:
That would make me very uneasy if I had taken action based on the WG findings and Yoo's interpretation - but I'm really out of my depth making any assertion.
The main point was about "excesses". It really looks like they created a situation where "excess" (roughly defined as going beyond the GTMO approved techniques?) was not a bug but a feature. Rumsfeld didn't issue specific guidance except to GTMO. Commanders in Afghanistan and later Iraq had to implement day-to-day operations with Yoo as the sole legal guidance (drawing on legal reasoning behind the 36 techniques recommended by the WG - although technically I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be limited to those 36 if a new technique could be construed within the reasoning). Ultimately the commands worked out SOPs that seem to have helped standardize practices and at some stage they went into serious CYA mode.
Rummy & Co. wouldn't have their signature specifically authorizing those actions - which would seem to provide a bit of deniability. I don't think they necessarily expected things to blow up and subject them to the scrutiny this has gotten. To a casual observer, they managed to keep their fingerprints off of everything but a few GTMO plans.
Hadley was definitely a mover. I'd love to see him under oath! But it's probably important to keep in mind who directed his actions. I think that would be Rumsfeld.
The big question mark in all this is what JSOC did. They had a unilateral command authority and their own operational policies. It seems much of the abuse occurred within the taskforces or by soldiers providing support to them. The Levin report indicates they refused to provide the committee with their SOPs or anything. IMO, this is where the real action is going to be if the whole truth ever comes out.
June 4, 2009 4:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we've drifted pretty far in time and space so I'll leave it here despite some remaining marginal issues... Thanks for the discussion.
June 4, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheney is such a partisan that I doubt very much that he even allowed Democrats to even be present at these meetings. I have a feeling that it was all republicans.....all of his meetings on the Hill were always with those in his own party.
There are no words in the english language for the contempt I have for this hideous man and his cohorts.
June 3, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
All of their hands are dirty, stained with the blood of a million Iraqis (among countless others the world over).
June 3, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Let the mighty eagle soar."
June 3, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Torture? Acting like the law doesn't apply? You are kidding, right?
Dick Cheney:
shot a man in the face;
had Secret Service keep local Sheriff away for over 24 hours while he sobered up;
then got questioned the NEXT AFTERNOON and said he was so upset he drank a few beers after the incident (genius!);
and then got a local friend to announce it to the world rather than any official means (that would be asked questions) like the White House or the cops.
Simple thing. Had I gotten drunk and shot my friend, two actions immediately happen: 1)Breathalizer. 2)My ass is in jail.
Instead, "hunting accident." Quote from the news, "happens all the time in Texas." See, you city folks don't understand how often we blow the face off somebody out here.
Seems Dick has pretty strong precedent for getting away with it.
June 3, 2009 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes I try picturing myself as a citizen of, say, Hamburg in the 1930s, wondering how 1 out of 2 people in my city neighborhood and the surrounding countryside are somehow, all of a sudden accepting this contemporary narrative that it's okay that Jewish fathers or mothers or entire Jewish families are starting to appear around town wearing wearing recently mandated gov't-issued 'Juda' tattoos (WTF, that is surely no fashion statement),and nearby neighbors and acquaintances whom I know well and trust are whispering stories about police rounding up entire families for detention and deportation.
Other neighbors and friends are less forgiving and loudly praise the eradication of the 'vermin' in
describing the disappeared and the imprisoned.
Do I get caught up in the religious fervor of Jew-cleansing or do I quietly adhere to my principles and keep my head low enough that the Gestapo might not notice me or a neighbor doesn't note my muted dissent?
Meanwhile today, 50-some % of Americans support torture as req'd. in a 'security emergency' (whenever the terror-alert color-code gets more orangy), trusting the gov't to choose to act in secret without an expectation of accountability or public record of their actions or of the results, positive or negative.
Back to Hamburg.
People of unknown origins are rumored to suffer and die in unconfirmed numbers in our very names but any information pertaining to same is redacted while citizens are expected to act on pure faith in the authoritarian leadership and just continue attempting to get up, go to work (if there is any) and get on with our lives and keep our families fed and our heads down and keep the faith, hoping that it doesn't somehow evolve into anything resembling, say, oh, I don't know...a holocaust?
Anyhoo, back to the present.
First they came for the Mexicans and the Muslims....
June 4, 2009 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Zachary, if you're going to refer to work by EmptyWheel (Marcy Wheeler at Marcy Wheeler), please give her credit. You manage to credit the Washington Post, the New York Times, and "former TPMmuckraker" Spencer, while leaving Marcy in the dustbin of blogger history, and with as much work as she did on Scooter Libby and FISA/torture, she deserves much better than that. And Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake, who now hosts Spencer's writing, has done a lot of tough water carrying herself. (Hmmm, does this software now require permission to post any comment with a URL?)
June 4, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink