« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
CIA Official To Be Interrogated On Interrogations
Welcome back to the heady nine months after 9/11, when the Bush administration feverishly debated what constituted acceptable treatment for al-Qaeda detainees. After a nearly six-year cycle of impunity, scandal and retrenchment, the CIA is again seeking guidance from the White House and the Justice Department about the legality of a detention and interrogation regime with which it has grown increasingly uncomfortable. And a congressional nomination hearing this afternoon for the agency's proposed top lawyer should give senators insight into what the new rules for interrogation will be.
Many within the CIA, for years, have been uncomfortable with the guidance it received from the Justice Department about interrogations. In August 2002, the Office of Legal Counsel famously ruled that nothing short of "organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death" constituted torture, thereby blessing as legal interrogation techniques -- like waterboarding, which simulates drowning -- that fall short of that redefined standard. The worry within CIA was that, inevitably, word of the agency's expanded interrogations would leak out, prompting an Abu Ghraib-style outrage and leaving CIA interrogators vulnerable to prosecution by the very Justice Department that initially blessed the new regime. That fear compounded in late 2004, when the OLC revised its definition of torture without clearly defining it, further troubling CIA interrogators.
Nor has the White House resolved the confusion.
President Bush has yet to provide to congress an executive order interpreting what acceptable interrogation measures are for CIA interrogators, an administration obligation established by the Military Commissions Act of 2006. One senior official tells the Washington Post's Karen DeYoung that "everybody recognizes that we're writing against, far from a blank slate, a very dirty slate. The administration would like to try to get it right."
A key figure in defining the new rules of the interrogation road will be the CIA's general counsel. And this afternoon, John Rizzo, a 30-year CIA veteran, goes before a skeptical Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for the job. In addition to learning where he stands on what constitutes lawful interrogation behavior for the CIA -- which, under the Military Commissions Act, is not subject to the Geneva Conventions-compliant Army field manual on interrogations -- the panel wants to know where Rizzo stood during the first iteration of the interrogations debate. Rizzo has been a mainstay of the CIA general counsel's office all through the post-9/11 period, often acting as interim general counsel, and he participated in post-9/11 administration debates over interrogation, renditions of al-Qaeda-linked detainees to countries that torture, and the establishment of secret CIA detention facilities overseas. It's likely to be a tough hearing: former CIA executive director A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard tells Mark Mazzetti of the New York Times that Rizzo will be a "piñata."
Complicating matters further: the committee wants the Bush administration to turn over its definition of "humiliating" and "degrading" treatment under Geneva's Common Article 3, most likely to ensure that the administration doesn't again attempt to define torture down. Reports DeYoung:
The administration is believed to have already obtained the review but is unlikely to turn it over to Congress, the administration official said. Lawmakers will be asked to accept Bush's assurance in the executive order that the program has been deemed lawful.
The CIA is still waiting on Bush's executive order blessing its new interrogation regime. Today's hearing may provide a glimpse as to what's in store for future detainees in CIA custody.
Comments (13)
Jane wrote on June 19, 2007 10:11 AM:I can't advocate torture:that would be wrong. But I fail to see what objection anyone involved with the OLC letter could make to having all their fingernails torn out.
senilebiker wrote on June 19, 2007 10:20 AM:I believe that having fingernails torn out would qualify as "impairment of bodily functions".
having no fingernails would render nosepicking impossible!
mbbsdphil wrote on June 19, 2007 10:22 AM:If John Rizzo has been a CIA lawyer for thirty years, he had twenty-five years' experience when Mr. Bush instigated his version of the Geheime Staatspolizei's "enhanced interrogation", why did Mr. Rizzo need to ask the Justice Department for clarification on what forms of interrogation were legal? Wouldn't he be the expected expert on such matters, more so than the academic lawyers at the OLC?
If he had to ask Main Justice, could he have been looking for anything other than CYA for acts he knew were unlawful?
conniptionfit wrote on June 19, 2007 10:50 AM:Geheime Staatspolizei? That's Gestapo to you and me. And an absolutely fair description of this business, despite the current unpopularity of nazi comparisons. What country is this, again?
Ugh wrote on June 19, 2007 10:55 AM:CIA was being careful - they wanted to be legal and got DOJ's blessing.
the exile wrote on June 19, 2007 11:17 AM:I hear over and over again that waterboarding "simulates" drowning. I don't know what that means. Does it or does it not make use of water to temporarily cut off the individual's access to oxygen? If the answer is yes, then that's no "simulation." It is controlled, temporary, maybe non-life-threatening, but very REAL drowning. Let's not let defenders of the practice spin us with their descriptions and definitions.
dee illuminati wrote on June 19, 2007 11:19 AM:The entire debate is false, the use of torture in a 'ticking bomb' scenario as was argued with sophistry "not worthy of a first-year law student" is the concept of jury nullification. That would mean that actionable intel would be at such a high bar that the individual extracting that intelligence would do so with the understanding that that intelligence extracted would stand the test of 'jury nullification.'
In a scenario of a genuine weapon of mass destruction, and with a 'certainty' that information was obtainable from a source, I would have no qualms about personally taking a blow-torch to the soles of his feet, toes.. etc.
However I would only do so in a draconian scenario. The scenario itself would be the rationale for the jury nullification.
The "not worthy of a first-year law student" argument is thus: people (plane crash survivors) in the andes ate other humans in the draconian circumstance where they prevented starvation after a plane crash. The Catholic Church which has a long standing taboo against eating human flesh granted absolution to the act. The ergo part is this: That the Church should create cannocal guidelines to the practice of cannibalism or that the act is now 'kosher.'
The only scenario that a healthy institution can endorse is the 'jury nullification' standard. The bar has to be set so high, the circumstances so unique, that the act of jury nullification is how these 'extrordinary events' are dealt with.
Utilizing torture does not protect our society, it instead debases it. Woe to the source whom I'm certain has actionable intel in a draconian scenario, the law be damned.. I'll peel him alive and allow the jury nullification process to attone for that barbarism.
Make no mistake about it.. "not worthy of a first-year law student" is the arguments for torture.
Robin Boerner wrote on June 19, 2007 12:42 PM:
Anonymous wrote on June 19, 2007 12:59 PM:Anyone who needs to ask a lawyer what level of torture is acceptable isn't going to helped by a policy paper. They need to go back in time and pick parents that could instill basic morals in them as children.
As you dig into the CIA practices during interrogations, one firm to review is Abraxas, the firm allegedly complicit with placing CIA offers used to conduct illegal interrogations, prisoner abuse, and using unlawfully-NSA-captured data to implement Geneva violations. Questions in re Abraxas as they relate to CIA prisoner interrogations, and other questions of personnel indicted in Italy and Germany related to Abraxas
A. Have members of congress and congressional staff counsel reviewing the CIA interrogation reviewed all public FOIAS, questions, and other publicly recommended lines of questions related to Abraxas;
B. How does data get transferred between the WH, EOP, OVP, CIA, Abraxas, Lockheed Martin, SAIC, Boeing, AT&T and the FISA warrant intermediaries who process warrants on the following issues: Rendition, FISA warrants, NSLs, employment contracts, CIA interrogations, aircraft scheduling, and the logistics centers in Europe to support black sites in Poland and Romania?
C. Would the Abraxas CEO describe the working relationship with the CIA directorate of support good, adequate, strained, or unbearable
D. When Abraxas personnel met with other intelligence community personnel in Sandia, was Abraxas pleased, dismayed, or confused by the presence of JTTF personnel, legal counsel, and DoD contractors from Ft. Huachuka?
E. What kind of screening do they do on personnel: How was it decided that a given cover story that Abraxas created for a CIA agent would sufficiently distract attention from war crimes, prisoner abuse, and other illegal activity;
F. What is their level of involvement in what the agents do while using the RNC e-mail accounts to transfer information from the WH, EOP, OVP through the political office, then into the CIA directorate of support, then to Abraxas;
G. What is the type of music personnel on the shuttle bus from CIA HQ to Abraxas HQ McLean Va enjoy; and how re differences of opinion on music reconciled;
H. To what extent are they involved with, or should be, in ensuring personnel they associate with are not involved with illegal activity;
I. Should they have known the conduct of personnel they were placing was or was not in violation of Geneva;
J. Which immunity contracts have they unreasonably relied upon to continue activity which is in contravention to Geneva;
K. How were these contract terms similar to language with Verizon, AT&T, Boeing and others allegedly complicit with FISA violations, rendition, and other illegal activity
L. Which contracting official, legal counsel, or outside firm was involved with drafting the language for these employment contracts;
N. What boiler plates used for the employment, subcontract language is common to other contract language in DoD and DoJ on issues of FISA violations, warrantless surveillance, prisoner abuse, illegal use of NSLs to target civilians to silence them over abusive subpoenas designed to silence public discussion of illegal activity connected with outside counsel, DoJ, EOP, and OVP
O. How have they attempted to wash their hands of activities they had a duty to not permit, violated Geneva;
P. To what extent have their counsel worked with the WH Counsel-DoJ to implement policies that violated Geneva, were abusive of prisoners, or did not fully implement the Geneva requirements;
Q. To what extent has the firm been complicity in transferring data that was illegally captured, then used that data during abusive interrogations to violate Geneva;
R. What kinds of contracts did the firm have with DoJ to engage in translation services of prisoners, and how did the firm act when allegations of misleading/incorrect/fabricated translation services surfaced;
S. Have all DoJ staff counsel and personnel in the DoJ Small Business area been appropriately reviewed to determine their oversight responsibilities of this firm while engaged in various translation services for DoJ
T. Does Abraxas meet on a regular basis with Sidley Austin legal counsel; or is the communication indirect through other intermediaries?
U. When Abraxas-placed-CIA-personnel were first indicted in Italy for illegal rendition of transfer of prisoners to Egypt, did Abraxas personnel understand that their firm was allegedly linked with Geneva violations?
V. Is there any plausible explanation why Abraxas is any different than firms in WWII who provided contracting support to the Nazis to transfer prisoners to concentration camps where they were abused, mistreated, and killed?
W. How would the Abraxas-placed-CIA like to characterize the working relationship with the NSA and CIA General Counsels on issues related to plans to circumvent Geneva, violate prisoners rights, or respond to the Supreme Court in re Hamdan: Was the relationship cordial responsive; or was there resistance by Abraxas to support what are alleged war crimes?
X. When the Abraxas-placed-CIA agents were involved with interrogations, how often did they review the guidance from the DoD General Counsel's office on issues related to prisoner abuse, Geneva, and excuses to not fully apply Geneva to all detained prisoners of war in Eastern Europe and other locations where Abraxas-placed-CIA agents conducted illegal abusive interrogations of prisoners of war?
Y. Could the Abraxas CEO please discuss all Memroanda between the Abraxas firm, CIA directorate of support, OVP, and DoD General Counsel Mary Walker on issues related to the intelligence briefings, and other legal memoranda used to explain away the applicability of Geneva;
Z. What were the Abraxas General Counsel's reactions when they learned that the DoD JAGs had been marginalized, as reported by Brad "Oy Vey" Berenson now with Sidley Austin: Did the Abraxas General counsel think, "Wow, we've got a war crimes problem on our hands, and need to get out of this contract as required by DC Bar Rule 1.6" or did the General Counsel never bother to think that anyone might ask the question whether the Abraxas General Counsel had fully complied with their Atty Standards of conduct mandating a withdrawal when the client -- DoJ Small Business in re translation, and the CIA -- was implicated with illegal activity?
Anonymous wrote on June 19, 2007 1:34 PM:WH EOP MEDIA STRATEGY: CREATE THE ILLUSION OF CONFUSION AND AMBIGUITY, DESPITE CLEAR TREATY REQUIREMENTS
This relates to a Presidential _decision_ to do something specific, but the current ploy to pretend that there was confusion.The President's claim of confusion on Geneva is without merit.
A. If the President was "confused" about a definition, what was the basis for him to conclude after reading the Bybee Memo that prisoners would or would not be treated in a certain way;
B. Why did the President not ask for more information;
C. Are there other decisions the President made based on dubious legal advice, but he would have us believe that he was confused about something well articulated to him?
To create confusion -- and distract attention from a legal issue -- one must know the standard. The knowledge of the law, and the plan to distract attention from illegal activity, is the basis to assert someone is being reckless: When they know, or should know, the law, but ignore it, this is an upward adjustment to the sentencing in re war war crimes/illegal prisoner abuse.
The TPM article appears to have swallowed a WH-EOP fiction: Contrary to claims that there was "confusion," Geneva is clear: There shall be NO Abuse of prisoners.
The error is to pretend that "a definition of torture" is the issue. It doesn't matter how you define torture, when the Conventions prohibit _all_ abuse. What WH legal counsel has done is change the focus from the _clear_ conventions, and introduced illusory ambiguity. The illusion is that "because there is confusion" abuse "torture" -- irrelevant -- that means "all sorts of other things are unclear."
The ruse is to distract attention from the clear Conventions prohibiting abuse, and appear to confusion over whether or not "torture is or is not as defined a violation of an unclear standard of torture." It's a deliberate smokescreen from the definition of abuse in Geneva: It is always prohibited; how one defines another term ["torture"] is irrelevant when the issue is _abuse_ relative to the clear standards of Geneva.
It is possible to abuse someone and "not be torture," but that is meaningless when Geneva prohibits _all_ abuse; how one defines torture is meaningless. Thus, this statement at TPM has no merit, is meaningless, and designed to support the WH-EOP media strategy to appeal to confusion: "That fear compounded in late 2004, when the OLC revised its definition of torture without clearly defining it, further troubling CIA interrogators. Nor has the White House resolved the confusion." The statement is flawed for the following reasons, based on the discussion above:
A. The WH is not a judicial body, and has no standing to "resolve" a legal matter;
B. The Confusion is illusory; Geneva is clear
C. What OLC did or did not do on its definition of torture, or whether it was revised or clear is meaningless. The Standard is not what OLC defines, but what is clearly promulgated in Geneva: No abuse of prisoners of war. Period. The definition of torture is irrelevant.
D. The basis for the CIA interrogator "concern" wasn't the confusion over definitions, but the opposite: they'd been caught, and no defense, and they relied they should have listed to the DoD JAGs, as Berenson reports they were _ignored_.
It is most likely DoJ OLC is working with the AG, GOP, and OVP to orchestrate media messaging to distract attention from the clear Geneva requirements, and focus on the "confusion" over torture. recall, there was no "confusion" -- the President, after reading the Bybee memo made a _decision_. That is not confusion, but his decision, rightly or wrongly, to comply with a specific standard; whether he ignored his decision, and subsequently violated Geneva does not appear to be in dispute.
Philip Wright wrote on June 19, 2007 1:48 PM:General Tagabu (?) seemed to have earned himself an invitation from Congress with his recent interview with Seymour Hersh. If his report to Congress is consistent with what Hersh is reporting in the New Yorker is not this pretty clear evidence that Cambone and Rumsfeld misled Congress in their testimony on Abu Ghareb? Doesn't what is being reported constitute a clear need for a Special Counsel? What are the bets this goes straight up to Cheney? How do you get a Special Counsel out of a corrupt DOJ? Cambone looks very vulnerable to me and needs to be looking at a long sentence or turning on the bastards above him.
parrot wrote on June 19, 2007 1:51 PM:Okay, fine. If they aren't going to turn it over to the Congress, let them be apprehended and sent to the Hague. I'm all for that!
Anonymous wrote on June 19, 2007 2:07 PM:This is fair notice what can happen to legal counsel complicit with failing to ensure Geneva is enforced; and for recklessly supporting/not stopping war crimes during illegal CIA interrogations: You can be disbarred; and you can have court/legal action taken against you in the open-public forum to deny you access to public/private facilities.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070619/ap_on_re_us/duke_lacrosse
The question for the US Attys who knew, or should have known, about these illegal CIA interrogations, and the other abuses against prisoners of war by civilians: Were they reckless in not fully asserting their oath to preserve Geneva, as required by article 82; or have they so miserably conducted themselves as to bring discredit upon themselves, the Dept of Justice, and the United States?
It does not appear there is much difference between the US Attys who ignored Geneva violations, and Nifong: "has engaged in willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, which brings the office into disrepute,"
A. DoJ Point of Contact Credibility
Where is Spike Bowman, who went to GTMO and supposedly found there were certain findings of fact: How do his original conclusions square with the findings of the Congress -- did Bowman recklessly conduct a review; or is he in the clear?
B. Documented Report to Joint Staff
What happened to the 170th Military Police Company report of findings on the prisoner abuse at Guantanamo [forwarded to 6th Group Security Police, then to the Joint staff]: Once the abuse at GTMO was discovered, why was there no timely review to ensure that _all_ CIA interrogations _worldwide_ including Eastern Europe fully complied with the law;
How were these lessons from the 170th MP Group report _immediately_ injected into the Ft. Huachuka interrogator training course
C. Oversight, Command and Control
Who within the WH Counsel's office had the duty, power, knowledge, and information from DoD and the intelligence community to see a common pattern and ensure that all agencies fully complied with Geneva?
Who besides Berenson of the WH legal counsel's office said that the DoD JAGs could be isolated, ignored, not given attention to; and that the DoD General Counsel's plan to ignore Geneva during interrogations could be fully implemented?
Where was Gonzalez during these CIA interrogations, and the reports of the interrogations -- which Berenson acknowledge on PBS Frontline -- were coming into the white House?
Did Gonzalez not for a moment think that he might face some questions bout this prisoner abuse; or did he believe that the republicans would forever Control Congress, and no other nation would attempt to enforce Geneva through the legal process or combat operations?
D. DoD General Counsel Atty Standards of Conduct
Once Mary Walker of DoD General Counsel received the 6th Group report of findings from GTMO, did Walker not have any comment on the abuses in light of the original guidance; how does Walker justify her actions, inaction or decision once the reports of abuse first surfaced?
E. Office of US Atty Malfeasance in re Geneva Violations
When did it sink into the minds of US Attys that their inaction on war crimes during interrogations -- and refusal to report peer misconduct to DoJ OPR -- might raise question about their suitability to practice law, remain a prosecutor?