« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
CIA's Rizzo: Our Interrogations Were Humane, Except When They Weren't
CIA General Counsel-Designate John A. Rizzo didn't just equivocate on whether he agreed with the Office of Legal Counsel's narrow definition of torture from August 2002. In his confirmation hearing today, Rizzo was all over the map about what the CIA actually did with detainees in its custody.
When Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) asked Rizzo whether he thought in 2002 that the CIA's interrogation regime was "humane," Rizzo -- who was acting general counsel for much of the time, and took part in deliberations about the legality of that regime -- replied that "We believed then, and we believe throughout the process, that the CIA (interrogation) program as it was conceived -- that the procedures, and the criteria, when taken in toto, leads to the conclusion, justifies the conclusion, that it was from the outset, and (in its subsequent implementation) was conducted in a humane manner." Yet the CIA, based in part on legal guidance delivered by the general counsel's office, authorized its interrogators to force detainees to stand for up to 40 hours; chill their cells to 50 degrees while dousing their naked bodies with cold water; and to simulate drowning them. Whether Rizzo actually believes such practices are humane, he conceded that "there had been some concerns that were expressed" by CIA interrogators who feared prosecution for carrying out the authorized interrogations.
But who was the subject of the "humane" interrogation regime? Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) asked Rizzo if it was his opinion that the Geneva Convention's Common Article 3 -- which protect combatants from "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment" -- applied to the fourteen high-value detainees transfered from CIA custody to Guantanamo Bay last year. Those detainees are the U.S.'s highest-level al-Qaeda captives, and they include 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Rizzo first said that "Common Article 3 were certainly applied to the fourteen" -- but then added that it wasn't until the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that Common Article 3 applies to al-Qaeda. That ruling was handed down in July 2006. "I can't tell you, before the Hamdan decision, that those standards were applied to enemy combatants before then," he said.
Just three months after the Hamdan ruling, CIA remanded the fourteen to the custody of the Department of Defense. The only acknowledged detainee held by CIA after the Supreme Court applied Common Article 3 to al-Qaeda is Abu Hadi al-Iraqi, an aide to Osama bin Laden, whom the CIA sent to Guantanamo in April.
Comments (17)
eugene debs wrote on June 19, 2007 8:16 PM:ya and?
eugene debs wrote on June 19, 2007 8:17 PM:the weak leaders will still confirm this work of art?
ya and?
eugene debs wrote on June 19, 2007 8:17 PM:the weak leaders will still confirm this work of art?
ya and?
libra wrote on June 19, 2007 9:31 PM:the weak leaders will still confirm this work of art?
Eugene is right; the question cannot be asked too many times. Did the spineless Senate give the axe to this specimen?
The Oracle wrote on June 19, 2007 10:23 PM:I just wonder what John Rizzo, due to his unique/pivotal position at the CIA, knew of the discussions/debates within the CIA, and between the CIA and the White House, over the criminal outing of a covert CIA agent in 2003? Did he have any meetings with John Ashcroft? Alberto Gonzales? Was he interviewed by Patrick Fitzgerald? By FBI agents charged with getting to the bottom of this major national security breach?
Plus, what does John Rizzo know of the status of the CIA's damage assessment investigation that must have been conducted immediately following the outing of covert CIA agent, Valerie Plame, in 2003?
In other words, if no damage occurred following the disclosure of Valerie Plame as a covert CIA operative, and the subsequent outing of Brewster-Jennings as a CIA front company, then this report would have been released long ago.
However, because this after-incident damage-assessment report has not been released, then one can only presume that severe damage was done to our national security...which the Bush administration, including possibly John Rizzo at the CIA, have been trying to hide from the American public.
I'll have to check the transcript of Rizzo's testimony, but posts and comments have indicated that this was never asked Rizzo during his confirmation hearing today...and I'd like to know.
none wrote on June 20, 2007 1:13 AM:I'm sorry..I'm afraid I must be missing something here.
Why isn't this war criminal on trial?
Arlo J. Thudpucker wrote on June 20, 2007 1:20 AM:Let's cut to the chase.
Interrogations are what Levin, et al., are doing.
Since Mr. Rizzo seems to believe the methods employed by the CIA were humane, he should have no objection whatsoever to the very same methods being employed on him.
In fact, the committee should insist upon these methods being used. By the book.
Unless, of course, Mr. Rizzo advises us these methods are torture.
Anonymous wrote on June 20, 2007 9:58 AM:The Oracle misses the point in trying to 'quantify' the damage as a consequence of the disclosure of Brewster Jennings involvement in providing cover for CIA assets. To be sure Brewster Jennings had legitimate and competitive lines of business to maintain the cover. The insidious circumstance is that even publicly acknowledging the loss of sources and methods plays into the hands of the defendants, and some less than scrupulous testimony from individuals like Victoria Toensing. Is there a need to quantify the amount of loss? In closed congressional hearings yes, to provide the sensationalism and journalistic interest for a focus on the 'sources and means' no.
I would imagine that there are legitimate concerns on the part of intelligence professionals at the DOS, DIA, CIA, NSA, and other agencies where recursal from meetings, hiring of personal lawyers, or just a RELUCTANCE and REFUSAL to serve in an active capacity arose from the handling of the agencies from a managerial and executive directive standpoint after 911. I could imagine someone saying, no thank you, I'm honored.. but lets discuss this in 2009.
There has always been the injection of bias and politicalization into the intel community, thats a fact! By the very mandate of these institutions these individuals need to be 'loyal americans first and foremost' and a sense of service beyond actual 9-5 card punching. Short only of the Treasury and the Secret Service, these individuals are unique in that respect.
But quite possibly the latest political injection and directives that are the topic of discussion in this article went too far, are these policies really acceptable to the 'intelligent' mind as they are palatable to the 'political' mind?
The argument that the INTEL community was agnostic is not true.. but on the other hand the manner in which the intel communities were coerced and bullied into deliverables now laughable exceeded the capacity of many to deliver.
Make no mistake about it, there was a direct and coordinated effort to punish, humiliate, and make an example of 'political opposition' as defined by the executive office irrespective of damage to national security or the national security institutions themselves. It was the opine of the political punnishment that if that an agreement was not in line with the political decisions, that the institution was better off without these indiviudals, irrespective of the merit of facts.
Take it at face value that Scooter Libby is going to jail and that barring only an executive order of a pardon, the explicit and complicit act of substantiating what I assert above, that there was indeed a crime committed and a loss to national security.
All the hand-wringing of testimony that the State Department cannot get good personel, the DOD has not clear marching orders, and that there is still ambiguity with the definition of torture will obscure the fact that the initial decisions of political nature made in the absence of facts and concluded in groupthink will address.
It was the message beyond the Plames that was intended that has created the most damage. The Plames were just two of many examples made as a political agenda was hammered home.
The intelligent mind and the political one often will not mix. An intelligent political mind recognizes the need to do so.
JusticeForall wrote on June 20, 2007 10:50 AM:I couldn't agree with you more, anon. Nice analysis. The true damage done to our security and to all Americans through the outting of Plame is incredibly disastrous. The true extent of the damage is far beyond what the public is aware of.
RW wrote on June 20, 2007 11:31 AM:I have this feeling that Nuremburg Trials will reconvene with America's soul being beared and in the history of irony this will be the example of all.
narrow
thedeanpeople wrote on June 20, 2007 12:38 PM:The Inconvenient Truth about Common Article 3.
It ain't just some touchy-feely, "furriner's rule" like in the old movies where the "Geneva Man" comes to look for a ham hock in the swill.
It is US Federal Law, under US Code Title 18:2441 War Crimes.
Which means the little dance the regime did around it and the continuing pussy footing has been patently illegal from the get-go.
The reason the regime and its Euphemedia minions went into an orgy of proposed tribunal tinkering after Hamdam was to distract from the cold reality of the ruling:
That years of war crimes had ALREADY been committed.
This prattling on about whose memo said what about how many degrees or hours is really, really tortuous is no different than all those pedophiles claiming that they were just giving those kids the love they didn't get at home.
The difference is that our DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy seems content to consecrate this delusion as a new core American value.
--
Mary wrote on June 20, 2007 12:58 PM:SC: jump (an entire nation jumps the shark)
Levin was happy to co-sponsor the DTA and carve out GITMO as a blackhole for torture. The fact that Hamdan spun it back at him, doesn't mean he wasn't right there with Bush and Rumsfeld and Rizzo and Yoo and Addington and Cheney etc. trying to make sure there as a habeas free site to take kidnap and human trafficking victims and torture them.
That doesn't leave him with much high ground than the sewer rats can claim. He refused to work to keep the MCA from coming up for a vote and refused to filibsuter it. Again, not much high ground when pretty much the sole purpose of the MCA was to supercede civilian criminal law and the standard court martial procedures of the Uniform Code of Military Justice with kangaroo courts; and to authorize to infinity the holding of innocent non-combatants with no recourse to ever seek any release and expose the government's criminal behavior to them.
Levin's never pushed for any kind of real investigation of the war crimes, committed and continuing (not just at GITMO but via our long term detention sites in Iraq and Afghanistan) against protected persons under the Geneva Conventions.
I didn't see all the hearings, but from the clips I saw no one seemed to pursue much the statements that Rizzo made about the CIA having a "companion" memorandum to the torture memo. IOW, it so freaked out the CIA Gen Counsel at the time, he wouldn't buy in. But Rizzo will.
And no one seems even to have a passing interest in whether or not Congress received briefings of CIA torture or whether, as Hersh sets out in the Taguba story, some of the worst was done through military ops strictly because they had no statutory reporting duties.
I haven't seen reports of any questions about the CIA questioning and involvement in the sleeping bag killing of the general who turned himself in in Iraq. No questions about the 30 or so "unaccounted for" who were in CIA hands. No questions about CIA kidnappings of children, like KSM's children, or accountability for their treatment and whereabouts. No questions about Arar, or el-Masri. NO questions about others who may have been "mistakes" but may not have had the lucky circumstance that Arar and el-Masri had, to have talking third parties involved in and knowledgable about their delivery into CIA hands. No quesions about murders or "accidental" abuse and torture related deaths. No questions about CIA knowedge of worse military abuses. Etc.
Maybe they were all asked and answered and just not very newsworthy and if I can catch a c-span replay it will al be there.
Maybe it was all just kabuki before they give Rizzo the same embrace they gave Hayden, despite his involvement in misrepresentations to Congress about the George&Mike approved, extra-statutory, extra-constitutional wiretaps. After all, whats a few hundred or thousand potential felonies between Congress and pro-torture appointees?
Anonymous wrote on June 20, 2007 6:35 PM:The Bybee Memo contradicts the CIA GC statement. "Humane" treatment was not a concern, but the opposite: How much pain and harm could be infilcted before the US crossed the threshold. Yet, the definition of torture is irrelevant: GEneva bans _all abuse_.
CIA General Counsel-Designate John A. Rizzo's statement is not consistent with the Bybee Memo; nor with waht reaonable counsel should assert in light of the Eastern European treatement problems, prompting the President to move prisoners to Guantanamo from Poland and Romania.
Anonymous wrote on June 20, 2007 6:44 PM:If torture is a "good" thing, why is the US, after abusing prisoners, losing in Afghanistan and Iraq?
The ticking time bomb scenario incorrectly asserts that, on accusation alone, we "know" who to torture. Why isn't the sorce of the accusation tortured; if they "know" to torture someone, why do we need to torture them?
There is no way to "know" that someone should be tortured; or argue that they "have" information unless the accusor has non-disclosed information.
Google: [Ticking time bomb] and [flaws]. Under scrutiny, you'll see the arguments "For" torture do not add up, and ask that we focuse attention on the accusors.
Scalia's use of the TV analogy is troubling, shows signs he's using fantasy, not reason, to arrive at legal conclusions. Not appropriate for him to pubilcly comment on whteher torture is or is not permissible.
Need to get the Judicial Cannons on the table, and discuss Scalians troubling comments on torture acceptability. Rizzo's assertions do not square with the President's change in position on prisoner treatement.
Greg McKenzie wrote on June 25, 2007 6:41 AM:John Rizzo is a patriot! We need more like him. The U.S. Constitution is not a mutual suicide pact. Experts in the field believe that it is no longer a question of whether, but when terrorists will obtain nuclear capability. Does this not frighten you?
Anonymous wrote on June 26, 2007 4:33 PM:I know its very trendy for people to disparage anything even remotely related to the Bush administration but at least know the facts before you start to slander a public servant.
Your knee jerk assumptions based simply on a dislike of the current administration illustrate everything that is wrong with politics in this country. At least know some basic background info before you comment - unless you enjoy operating like our current president.
The media and activist journalists have editorialized this entire confrimation process into total fiction.
Here are the facts:
- Any lawyer can tell you that reciting and interpretting any law is a detailed process. Combined with the pressure of a bunch of press hungry Senators coming at you, there are bound to be minor misinterpretations and minor errors in any detailed statement.
- Also note, this was only the public portion of the hearing. In fact it is entirely atypical to have a public hearing for the confirmation of this position...but some Senators thought they could earn some political points in front of the cameras. THE PROPER TIME TO GET INTO THE DETAILS OF ALL OF THE INTERROGATION AND RENDITION ISSUES IS IN THE CLOSED SESSION. Rizzo was having a difficult time answering these types of questions in public due to the sensitivity of the material. I'm sure all of you who blasted the WH for outing Valerie Plame can understand and agree with that type of logic.
- Rizzo was raised a Democrat and is currently an independent due his personal knowledge of most of the players inside the beltway.
- Rizzo worked closely with the Clinton administration and remains very close with Democratic appointee George Tenet.
- Rizzo was actually the person who pointed out the fact that Valerie Plame's outing was illegal and filed the initial complaint to the DOJ.
- The DOJ, under guidance from the WH, pushed its guidlines for interrogation standards down the throats of many intelligence agencies as the WH did with its case for the war in Iraq.
and FINALLY
- Your esteemed Democratic Senators Weinstein, Wyden and Levin did not even show up to question Rizzo in the closed session even though they said in public that they were so interested in the information Rizzo could provide.
You know why?
They only care when the cameras are rolling and their constituents are watching. They don't truly care about anything other than re-election.
These types of politicians (on both sides of the aisle) are the problem, not someone who has spent 32 years of his life in public service (under BOTH Democratic and Republican adminstrations) in an attempt to keep this country safe enough that daft people like you can spend your lives repeating the innane garbage the sensationalist media feeds you.....don't be total pawns.
To be honest I thought this site was smarter than the uniformed comments and one sided article above.
Anonymous wrote on June 28, 2007 12:20 PM:Hi, does anyone know where I can get an electronic transcript of the Rizzo confirmation hearing?
Thanks so much!