« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
According to John A. Rizzo, the longtime CIA attorney nominated to become general counsel, the agency might -- just might -- have the power to detain a U.S. citizen overseas at the direction of the president.
Rizzo's statement came at the end of his two-hour Senate confirmation hearing yesterday, in which he equivocated on what he thought of the Justice Department's shifting definitions of torture and whether any top al-Qaeda detainees in CIA custody were in fact abused. Responding to a question from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) about presidential authority to order CIA to take an American citizen overseas into custody, Rizzo replied, "it would be extremely problematic in terms of the rights of an American citizen for CIA to capture him overseas."
The answer Wyden was hoping for was "no," and he didn't hear it. "But you say it could be done."
"I don't want to say it could be done," Rizzo parried.
"You just said 'extraordinary circumstances,'" Wyden replied.
"I meant it would be extraordinarily difficult in terms of the rights of a citizen for due process for the president to direct CIA to capture an American citizen overseas," Rizzo said.
Wyden said he'd press the subject in closed session. While CIA has not been accused of detaining a U.S. citizen overseas, the Justice Department has claimed in court that the indefinite detention without charge of U.S. citizens Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla was a plenary presidential war power. (The Supreme Court rejected the argument in Hamdi's case and Padilla was eventually charged in a civilian court.) Additionally, the Saudi government detained U.S. citizen Ahmed Omar Abu Ali for 20 months without charge, a circumstance known to the FBI, before he was charged in U.S. courts in February 2005 -- and ultimately convicted -- of plotting to assassinate President Bush. None of these cases involved the CIA, but the Bush administration has consistently maintained that U.S. citizens can be treated as unlawful combatants, and therefore subject to detention without charge.
If confirmed, Rizzo's first big challenge will be reviewing a new set of CIA authorities for detention and interrogation for their legality, pending a forthcoming executive order.
Comments (27)
jacqueline grant wrote on June 20, 2007 10:02 AM:Did anyone hear this man say he gives advice above and beyond what may be legal.
jacqueline grant wrote on June 20, 2007 10:02 AM:Where is the reporting on that .
The man says he'll give the president illegal advice . Isn't this why other countries hate us!!!!
Did anyone hear this man say he gives advice above and beyond what may be legal.
jacqueline grant wrote on June 20, 2007 10:02 AM:Where is the reporting on that .
The man says he'll give the president illegal advice . Isn't this why other countries hate us!!!!
Did anyone hear this man say he gives advice above and beyond what may be legal.
jacqueline grant wrote on June 20, 2007 10:03 AM:Where is the reporting on that .
The man says he'll give the president illegal advice . Isn't this why other countries hate us!!!!
Did anyone hear this man say he gives advice above and beyond what may be legal.
jacqueline grant wrote on June 20, 2007 10:03 AM:Where is the reporting on that .
The man says he'll give the president illegal advice . Isn't this why other countries hate us!!!!
Did anyone hear this man say he gives advice above and beyond what may be legal.
jacqueline grant wrote on June 20, 2007 10:06 AM:Where is the reporting on that .
The man says he'll give the president illegal advice . Isn't this why other countries hate us!!!!
Did anyone hear this man say he gives advice above and beyond what may be legal.
jacqueline grant wrote on June 20, 2007 10:06 AM:Where is the reporting on that .
The man says he'll give the president illegal advice . Isn't this why other countries hate us!!!!
Did anyone hear this man say he gives advice above and beyond what may be legal.
mr.ed wrote on June 20, 2007 10:06 AM:Where is the reporting on that .
The man says he'll give the president illegal advice . Isn't this why other countries hate us!!!!
There really is a Ratso Rizzo!
Dennis wrote on June 20, 2007 10:08 AM:What ever wrongs that have been committed by the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, the Pentagon and all other similiar agencies within the past seven years (or more), one thing has been established beyond a reasonable doubt; the U.S. Congress isn't going to do a damned thing about putting a stop to any of it.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
mr.ed wrote on June 20, 2007 10:12 AM:There really is a Ratso Rizzo!
RandyR wrote on June 20, 2007 10:18 AM:"It's only torture if there is enough pain to cause death or organ failure."
That's the standard this public servant set for the CIA. I guess America sets the standard for the world.
Security Code: Stiff And that's how he likes 'em.
jeffgee wrote on June 20, 2007 10:19 AM:A message to the posters here- today it's jacqueline grant: Be patient. Wait awhile after clicking the Post button. Sometimes the servers are slow. Clicking it more than once won't speed it up. Redundant postings are tedious.
On the topic, is this guy related to a fascist from the past with the same name, former Philly mayor Frank Rizzo?
Stan wrote on June 20, 2007 10:30 AM:In the America I once believed that I lived in, this (semi)Fascist, Authoritarian-worshipping, immoral excuse for a citizen would never have had the audacity to seek confirmation after it was revealed that he had failed to object to Woo's hideous excuse for legal analysis.
In the America I now know that I live in, no one will stop this travesty. The majority of the committee did not even appear for the hearing.
What is the point of electing Democrats to office if they consistently refuse to take any principaled stand? If they are not willing to stand up to the most unpopular administration in modern history, can we believe that they would do anything to oppose drifting even further toward the loss of all of the principals the country once stood for?
God, this is depressing.
Michael wrote on June 20, 2007 10:35 AM:I hope the senate does not confirm one more of Bush's bozos for anything. We are better off with an empty chair than one of these guys in it causing untold damage to our country. No more confirmations.
I want to see congress to start cutting off funding, now. We can start with Gonzo's paycheck and work our way down from there. No more funding and no more confirmations.
Michael wrote on June 20, 2007 10:41 AM:I hope the senate does not confirm one more of Bush's bozos for anything. We are better off with an empty chair than one of these guys in it causing untold damage to our country. No more confirmations.
I want to see congress to start cutting off funding, now. We can start with Gonzo's paycheck and work our way down from there. No more funding and no more confirmations.
Stan wrote on June 20, 2007 10:48 AM:In the America I once believed that I lived in, this (semi)Fascist, Authoritarian-worshipping, immoral excuse for a citizen would never have had the audacity to seek confirmation after it was revealed that he had failed to object to Woo's hideous excuse for legal analysis.
In the America I now know that I live in, no one will stop this travesty. The majority of the committee did not even appear for the hearing.
What is the point of electing Democrats to office if they consistently refuse to take any principaled stand? If they are not willing to stand up to the most unpopular administration in modern history, can we believe that they would do anything to oppose drifting even further toward the loss of all of the principals the country once stood for?
God, this is depressing.
Michael wrote on June 20, 2007 10:49 AM:Sorry, the servers must be messed up. I got an error message and then typed in a new security code and got the same error message again. In order to avoid multiple postings, I checked to see if my message was posted and both were despite the error messages.
Stan wrote on June 20, 2007 11:01 AM:In the America I once believed that I lived in, this (semi)Fascist, Authoritarian-worshipping, immoral excuse for a citizen would never have had the audacity to seek confirmation after it was revealed that he had failed to object to Woo's hideous excuse for legal analysis.
In the America I now know that I live in, no one will stop this travesty. The majority of the committee did not even appear for the hearing.
What is the point of electing Democrats to office if they consistently refuse to take any principaled stand? If they are not willing to stand up to the most unpopular administration in modern history, can we believe that they would do anything to oppose drifting even further toward the loss of all of the principals the country once stood for?
God, this is depressing.
Jon wrote on June 20, 2007 11:10 AM:The blowback from Bush's torture is plain to see in Iran today. If we want more of the same we should definitely confirm Rizzo.
parrot wrote on June 20, 2007 12:52 PM:How about we don't confirm any more torture advocates in the government, especially counselors? Thanx.
johnnydoughey wrote on June 20, 2007 1:05 PM:What is becoming more and more bothersome to me is that, although we are seeing no responsibility or accountability from the administration, and no desire for congressmen to come foreward and demand the same, more and more of these actions are becoming cloaked in national security excuses, many of which are set up so their employers (that's us, folks) cannot find out what they are doing.
The priveledged few congressmen (those on the special committees) then use the excuse that they took an oath not to disclose this information. Apparently, secrecy oaths are more important than the ones they take to defend the constitution.
The end result is that the oligarchy doesn't have to worry about congress... congress is kind of like the jewish doctor who didn't do anything when some of his friends were taken away by the germans because it did'nt affect him- yet... and for those actions which they believe the public (us again) will find so discusting that we will no longer tolerate it, they stamp a secrecy notation on it.
Meanwhile, more and more government funds are diverted from services for the people and used to hire government employees with weapon permits to increase our police state.
And no, I am not paranoid.. I realize this is all being done for our own good... at least, that's what I've been told.
Stan wrote on June 20, 2007 1:36 PM:In the America I once believed that I lived in, this (semi)Fascist, Authoritarian-worshipping, immoral excuse for a citizen would never have had the audacity to seek confirmation after it was revealed that he had failed to object to Woo's hideous excuse for legal analysis.
In the America I now know that I live in, no one will stop this travesty. The majority of the committee did not even appear for the hearing.
What is the point of electing Democrats to office if they consistently refuse to take any principaled stand? If they are not willing to stand up to the most unpopular administration in modern history, can we believe that they would do anything to oppose drifting even further toward the loss of all of the principals the country once stood for?
God, this is depressing.
LarryE wrote on June 20, 2007 2:07 PM:"But you say it could be done."
"I don't want to say it could be done," Rizzo parried.
"I didn't ask you what you wanted to say, Mr. Rizzo, I asked if you say the president has that power."
Any answer to Wyden's question other than a flat "no" becomes merely a dispute over circumstances on the lines of "we know what you are, we're just haggling over the price."
LarryE wrote on June 20, 2007 2:12 PM:Michael -
Thanks for the heads up about server problems. I didn't even get an error message; I seemed to get absolutely no response at all. But thanks to your tip I thought to look rather than reposting and yep, there it was.
Caveat poster, gang.
The Oracle wrote on June 20, 2007 3:15 PM:John Rizzo has been the acting CIA general counsel of and on for the past six years.
One topic apparently off the table during his open confirmation hearing was any involvement he might have had in the Valerie Plame affair...as in any legal wrangling that took place between the CIA and the White House.
Did Rizzo ever talk to anyone in the White House about it? Ashcroft? Gonzales? Miers? Rove?
Did Rizzo ever talk to Patrick Fitzgerald or any of the FBI investigators about it?
And does Rizzo know anything about the CIA's after-incident damage assessment report regarding any blowback from White House officials disclosing the highly-classified covert identity of one of the CIA's operatives? Where is it? If there's no "underlying crime" involved, as some people keep repeating in defense of Scooter Libby, then why hasn't this after-incident damage report been released publicly?
Anyway, Rizzo is up for confirmation. Focusing on the anti-Geneva Conventions, anti-"rule of law" torture issue is important, but in my view, questioned also should have been asked about anything Rizzo knows involving the Valerie Plame affair, since Rizzo, as acting CIA general counsel would have probably been involved in some way.
Christopher Mills wrote on June 20, 2007 6:19 PM:The Democrats need to get on the same page when confronted with the Republican play-book games that are employed in such inquiries (confirmation or investigative). For instance, they all need to consistently start responding to answers like the above from Rizzo in a manner similar to the following:
"I did not ask you what you want to say. I asked you what you believe. Please provide an answer about what you believe about x, not about what you want to say. The latter is a non-answer to the question."
In an investigative context they should be more aggressive. They should remind the witness of their oath and point out explicitly that an answer like Rizzo's is an evasive non-answer, and they should demand a direct answer. And if the witness remains evasive, they should explicitly state for the Congressional Record that the witness has not answered the question that he/she was asked.
The Republicans have been using this technique as cover to say anything that is convenient at the moment, with a confidence derived from a pervasive feeling of impunity. And the Republicans are right. They are provided with a cover of impunity from the employment of this play-book technique. To disarm this technique the Democrats need to call it out, over and over again every time. They need to give it a name and expose it at the surface of our public discourse. In doing so they will remove this powerful arrow from the Republican quiver.
Christopher Mills wrote on June 20, 2007 7:30 PM:The Democrats need to get on the same page when confronted with the Republican play-book games that are employed in such inquiries (confirmation or investigative). For instance, they all need to consistently start responding to answers like the above from Rizzo in a manner similar to the following:
"I did not ask you what you want to say. I asked you what you believe. Please provide an answer about what you believe about x, not about what you want to say. The latter is a non-answer to the question."
In an investigative context they should be more aggressive. They should remind the witness of their oath and point out explicitly that an answer like Rizzo's is an evasive non-answer, and they should demand a direct answer. And if the witness remains evasive, they should explicitly state for the Congressional Record that the witness has not answered the question that he/she was asked.
The Republicans have been using this technique as cover to say anything that is convenient at the moment, with a confidence derived from a pervasive feeling of impunity. And the Republicans are right. They are provided with a cover of impunity from the employment of this play-book technique. To disarm this technique the Democrats need to call it out, over and over again every time. They need to give it a name and expose it at the surface of our public discourse. In doing so they will remove this powerful arrow from the Republican quiver.