Cheney’s Hagiographer Takes a Mulligan

/50 Comments/in /by

Remember how, back in April, Cheney promised that two CIA documents he requested would prove torture worked? Remember how those documents proved no such thing?

Well now Cheney’s hagiographer, Stephen Hayes, is taking a mulligan on the efficacy argument. (h/t Nan) Here, Hayes equates a few spooks’ (and presumably, given the source, Dick’s himself) attempt to cherry-pick some more documents with ACLU’s support of total transparency.

But a growing number of CIA officials–both current and former–are in agreement right now with the ACLU about some of the most-sensitive information the U.S. government has obtained in the eight-year war on terror.

But of course, unlike the ACLU, these spooks just want some documents declassified–the documents they pick and choose, and not even most of the documents the ACLU is focusing on in the FOIA Hayes mentions at the end of the document.

But now there’s a push from within the CIA to declassify and release even more information about the CIA’s enhanced interrogation program. CIA officers believe that making public additional details will end the debate over the efficacy of the program, and so they are pushing to have hundreds of pages of highly classified documents declassified and released, including a detailed response to the IG report, two internal reviews of the interrogation program undertaken by respected national security experts, and perhaps even redacted versions of the raw interrogation logs.

"Please! FOIA me!" The CIA is suddenly saying. "But don’t FOIA the approval processes. Don’t FOIA the early work involving John Yoo, John Rizzo, and David Addington. You don’t want to see those documents!! No, check out these other documents."

These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.

Heck, Hayes even reveals one of John Helgerson’s recommendations–which CIA had redacted in its entirety–to do an outside review.

In his 2004 report, Helgerson recommended bringing in an outside group to review the program. CIA director George Tenet delegated the task to the directorate of operations. Concerned about sharing details of the top secret program, officials "outside" of the interrogation program but still inside the CIA were selected to do the review. The team’s findings are known inside the agency as the "rebuttal," and they argue that the program worked even more unambiguously than the IG report suggested. 

Of course, Hayes doesn’t tell you that the head of DO, Jim Pavitt, was part of the program itself (as the IG Report itself notes).  I’m sure that didn’t have any influence on the review.

Then Hayes invents reasons why no one wanted to be a part of a second follow-up report.

More than one person, including former Republican senator Warren Rudman, turned down the request to serve. (The reasons given most often were lack of time and subject-matter expertise, but several intelligence officials suspect the real reason for the reluctance was a fear of having to conclude, in writing, that the controversial program was a success.)

But don’t worry, Cheney and his spooks would like you to know, these are really credible  reports, not like the report done by the quasi-independent IG, who (Hayes explains helpfully) "well known inside the CIA as a critic of the detention program."

Similarly, Hayes doesn’t tell us why the two outside investigators–John Hamre and Gardner Peckham–wrote two separate reports even after conducting an investigation together. Perhaps because Hamre didn’t agree with Peckham’s conclusion that torture led directly to the collection of quality information?

In short, it’s yet another attempt to make an argument that–even if it were sustainable, which it is transparently not–would not change the fact that torture has done far more harm than good. 

Here’s the part I love best, though:

Only the detainees themselves were off-limits to Hamre and Peckham. 

We know that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has, himself, mocked our torture efforts. We know Rahim al-Nashiri and Abu Zubaydah recanted significant parts of their testimony. But I’m sure not letting these "independent" reviewers talk to detainees themselves was a mere oversight.

Instead of hearing from those who were tortured how much crap they gave in response, we get some cowboy former spook, assuring us that, "Almost all of the good information came from waterboarding and the other EITs," says a former senior U.S. intelligence official. "Once they broke, they broke for good. And then they talked forever."

Stephen Hayes, Cheney’s hagiographer, took a mulligan. And he whiffed. Again.

image_print
50 replies
  1. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    Stephen Hayes, Cheney’s hagiographer, took a mulligan. And he whiffed.

    Oh, no, EW. You must not have received the Memo Revising Mulligans.

    If one of Cheney’s current or former associates whiffs, that will now be titled ‘Whitzing’. It is counted as a hole-in-one if GWBush is acting as caddy; it is counted for an extra point if someone hired on a no-bid contract through a black op budget is filling in for GWBush as caddy.

    I’d share the Memo Revising Mulligans with you, but it’s my understanding that Cheney still has it classified Top Secret; you know how he is about making up new rules and then not letting anyone else know about them.

    /s

  2. TheOrA says:

    Interesting interview of Lawrence Wilkerson by Andy Worthington.

    http://pubrecord.org/nation/49…..on-cheney/

    That is to say, Addington was very influential, maybe to the point of maximally influential with that idiot Gonzales, and everything that flowed from Gonzales, both when he was Bush’s Counsel and when he was Attorney General, and was also influential through his connection with Libby, and Libby’s ability to coordinate the interagency group that essentially worked for the Vice President — not for the President but for the Vice President. Addington was both the Zawahiri and the bin Laden.

    h/t to rrheard at Salon for the link

  3. WilliamOckham says:

    several intelligence officials suspect the real reason for the reluctance was a fear of having to conclude, in writing, that the controversial program was a success.)

    I am sure that reluctance had nothing to do with how dissenting voices were treated by the Cheney gang.

    • timbo says:

      More interesting to know is whom are “several intelligence officials” feeding this line to the public. If the information is classified, why are these folks talking to reporters about this sort of information at all? Is it CIA policy to let active and former intelligence officials opine about American intelligence operations to the pubic, especially when those operations have continuously been protected under various secrecy invocations? Frankly, I’d like to see why my tax dollars are being spent to pay the salary of CIA officials who want to perform propaganda operations within the United States with various American news organizations.

  4. GregB says:

    Hayes’ chin is showing visible signs of cupping due to the repeated resting of Dick Cheney’s balls.

    Do these whores ever tired of spreading for power?

    -G

  5. JasonLeopold says:

    On a side note, Helgerson, in an email interview he gave to Fox News, had some interesting words to describe his relationship with Cheney and Cheney’s queries about the probe:

    “The VP (whom I had long known reasonably well, as, in a non-IG capacity, I used to brief the House Intelligence Committee on a weekly basis when he was an active Member) received me graciously and asked a number of good and appropriate questions. Despite what you may have read elsewhere, he did not attempt in any way whatsoever to intimidate me or influence what we were finding, concluding and recommending,” Helgerson wrote in an e-mail to FOX News.

    [snip]

    Helgerson wrote that some members “at the heart of the program” in fact expressed relief that a rigorous review was happening. Based on the IG report, some CIA employees were anxious about the program, which was unprecedented, and they wanted to be sure whatever they did was properly vetted — reducing the risk to them.

    [snip]

    “In a few cases I turned to the Office of General Counsel and asked them to explain to a given employee or component what their legal obligations were, and this quickly brought cooperation. Despite all this, there was enough disorganization in the program, including confused record-keeping in the early months, that the Agency sometimes had considerable difficulty responding in a timely way to our needs for information. Overall, I would say that I received as full cooperation as any IG can reasonably expect, given the complex nature of the matters being reviewed,” he wrote.

  6. JasonLeopold says:

    also, in an interview Helgerson gave last week to Speigel, he said:

    Our review was difficult because of the disorganization of the whole interrogation program. So much was being improvised in those early years in so many locations. There were no guidelines, no oversight, no training. How will you review a program handled differently in so many places in the world? The extended time it took to complete the review was also due to a practice to permit all agency individuals and components who are subjects of our work to review our reports in draft, and to comment on them. Owing to the complexity and sensitivity of this matter, that process took a long time.

    And regarding Zubaydah and the suspicion that he was tortured before the 8/1/02 OLC memo, I thought this was interesting even though we’ve known about it:

    There was some legal advice given orally to the CIA that had then been followed up by memorandums months later.

      • WilliamOckham says:

        Yeah, no kidding. Months later, in the time frame of the IG report, is very interesting indeed. I also like his pointing to a lack of recordkeeping early. That is something I have been harping on. I think it was intentional.

        • bobschacht says:

          Interestingly enough, this is exactly the advice Medoff gave to his financial “students” on how to beat the SEC who were supposed to be regulating his activities. I heard about it in the last few days, either on NPR news or maybe the Diane Rheim show. His advice: don’t put anything in writing unless you absolutely have to.

          Bob in AZ

    • maryo2 says:

      Our review was difficult because of the disorganization of the whole interrogation program. So much was being improvised in those early years in so many locations. There were no guidelines, no oversight, no training.

      Two things:
      disorganization of the whole interrogation program = the progam was intentionally compartmentalized

      There were no guidelines, no oversight, no training = total rebuttal to the frequent argument that the program was well-monitored to prevent torturers from going over some DOJ specified limit

  7. Jkat says:

    addington is indeed a prick .. maybe even the most culpable prick after cheney himself ..

    and it doesn’t matter if it was effective .. or not effective .. the techniques are/were outside the law ..

    OLC .. OIG .. OGC.. DoJ .. it doesn’t matter ..none of them can write a memo which suspends or alters written black letter US law ..

    the usual presentation of this issue as: “it’s really OKAY ..because it [was necessary and it..] worked !” .. is gwowing vewy tiresome ….

  8. LabDancer says:

    Does it seem at all likely that the author’s/authors’ first choice for publishing was leftover paper rolls from the boy’s room at Bloody Bill’s tree house? It’s got to say something about a certain someone’s current mental state when his hot insider exclusive news fails to rise to the lofty standards of even the Moonie Times. I’m guessing certain someone has been advised against further appearances on his Norma Desmond tour, especially after the msm so gleefully mocked Chris Wallace, not I think for the beachballs, & maybe not even repeatedly placing them just-so on the 3 foot high T; but certainly for having the fences brought inside the pitcher’s rubber, and probably that location beeper as well.

    With all the Old Media options dead, unsafe or no longer willing, might he, like it seems thee days in the case with so many old brands in desperate search for extension, resort to New Media, such as something in this vein?:

    http://glennbeckrapedandmurder…..n1990.com/

    • TheOrA says:

      Thanks, I thought it a was a good read, with the caveat that even though Wilkerson comes across as a straight talker, he does have a dog in the hunt (legacy, potential criminality, etc.,.).

  10. perris says:

    But a growing number of CIA officials–both current and former–are in agreement right now with the ACLU about some of the most-sensitive information the U.S. government has obtained in the eight-year war on terror.

    that “growing number” of “cia officials” are the composition of team b, we get those names we know who is in team b

    that “growing number” cannot grow too big either since the very vast majority of the cia are and was against these programs since they make it almost impossible to gather any other information either inside or outside this program

    that’s an epiphane right there for me by the way;

    not only does the torture program prevent gathering actionable information from the program it also prevents gathering information outside the program!!!!

    think about that, it is certainly true and it must become part of the conversation

  11. temptingfate says:

    Robbery, rape, murder and probably even torture can all be defended on the grounds of efficiency so long as the perpetrator is more important than the victim. The argument that so long as the victim is undeserving or not quite human then there are no rules is morally corrupt and functionally bankrupt. There were sound ethical as well as pragmatic principles that the the Nuremberg trials were based upon. The slippery slope of torture for one purpose can easily be applied to any other contingency that might arise. Moral leadership is completely lost by even focusing the conversation around stupid ideas like efficiency.

    Efficiency or any other excuse to commit barbaric acts is irrelevant. The Cheney defenders appear to want the whole world to live in their self-justified violence-as-a-tool cesspool.

    Since these documents were redacted and also had questionable results perhaps the authors and defenders of such policies should each be subjected to torture in order to verify that they are not in fact lying about some of the results. Plus, this would provide an additional test of efficiency especially if constructed using double-blinds. After all, a good idea for one must be a good idea for all.

    Within the CIA there would be two view points represented. 1. Torture is the best thing evah. 2. Torture may or may not work so the information gathering process must be refined to provide the best options. Any other viewpoints would be excluded during the hiring process. Biased sources produce biased results.

    • bobschacht says:

      Robbery, rape, murder and probably even torture can all be defended on the grounds of efficiency so long as the perpetrator is more important than the victim. The argument that so long as the victim is undeserving or not quite human then there are no rules is morally corrupt and functionally bankrupt. There were sound ethical as well as pragmatic principles that the the Nuremberg trials were based upon. The slippery slope of torture for one purpose can easily be applied to any other contingency that might arise. Moral leadership is completely lost by even focusing the conversation around stupid ideas like efficiency.

      Thanks for this. Absolutely right on!

      Bob in AZ

  12. perris says:

    HOLY CRAP!!!

    been reading this over and I CAN’T believe I MISSED this!;

    Concerned about sharing details of the top secret program, officials “outside” of the interrogation program but still inside the CIA were selected to do the review. The team’s findings are known inside the agency as the “rebuttal,” and they argue that the program worked even more unambiguously than the IG report suggested.

    WHAT have I been saying for EVER…???

    THAT IS TEAM B DAMN IT!

    this is the SAME team b that created FALSE data to undermine nixon’s treaty of detante, the SAME team b that created the false data to get us into Iraq

    this is team b damn it!

  13. stryder says:

    this sums it up

    “The CIA is dedicated to defending America; the ACLU has spent millions defending al Qaeda.

  14. fatster says:

    Interesting news.

    Inmates attack guards at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison; US military asked for help
    HAMID AHMED
AP News
    Sep 11, 2009 07:14 EST

    “Inmates at Abu Ghraib prison started a fire and attacked guards, prompting authorities to call in Iraqi troops and American helicopters for support, the U.S. military said Friday.”

    More.

    Pakistan Says It Has Seized Taliban Spokesman
    By JANE PERLEZ and PIR ZUBAIR SHAH
    Published: September 11, 2009

    MINGORA, Pakistan — “The Pakistani Army announced Friday that security forces have arrested the spokesman of the Taliban in Swat, in the troubled area of Swat where the military has largely put down an insurgency.”

    More.

  15. Teddy Partridge says:

    This effectiveness debate is absolutely revolting.

    Torture is a war crime. Its “effectiveness” should never be debated in civilized society. Anyone who participates in trying to shore up their war crime by promoting its efficacy is further committing a war crime, in my view.

  16. perris says:

    on another emptywheel thread, pjburke posts a terrific link whence some generals bitch slap cheney right cross the nog;

    Fear was no excuse to condone torture.

    [W]e never imagined that we would feel duty-bound to publicly denounce a vice president of the United States, a man who has served our country for many years. In light of the irresponsible statements recently made by former Vice President Dick Cheney, however, we feel we must repudiate his dangerous ideas — and his scare tactics.

    We have seen how ill-conceived policies that ignored military law on the treatment of enemy prisoners hindered our ability to defeat al Qaeda. We have seen American troops die at the hands of foreign fighters recruited with stories about tortured Muslim detainees at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. And yet Cheney and others who orchestrated America’s disastrous trip to “the dark side” continue to assert — against all evidence — that torture “worked” and that our country is better off for having gone there. … [snippage]
    http://www.miamiherald.com/opi…..27832.html

    * General Charles C. Krulak, commandant of the Marine Corps [1995-99] and General Joseph P. Hoar, C-IN-C, CENTCOM [1991-94].

    I hope we’re seeing a concerted ‘torturer-and-apologist smackdown’ media campaign beginning here.

    re-read that second paragraph, that is a brutal indictment against anything cheney has been saying

  17. Gitcheegumee says:

    O/T but of interest:

    Attorney General Holder Decides Not To Charge Former Bush Justice Department Official
    Source: Associated Press

    WASHINGTON – Attorney General Eric Holder has decided not to bring any criminal charges against a former Bush administration official who lawmakers said lied to them in sworn testimony.
    An inspector general’s report found that Bradley Schlozman, the former head of the civil rights division, misled lawmakers about whether he politicized hiring decisions.

    Criminal prosecutors eyed the matter but decided not to file any criminal charges for his under-oath denials of making personnel decisions based on politics.

    Read more: CiUMEaPc:UiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr” target=”_blank”>http://www.startribune.com/nat…..KAr…

  18. Badwater says:

    Prisoners were tortured because that made both Decider Bush and Cheney feel like tough guys. Gaining information was merely a side effect. Additionally, it made Decider Bush giggle.

  19. eCAHNomics says:

    I fully understand the danger of letting the CIA do selective declassification to prove their points, but it might be different in this case. I am convinced that no one learned anything but the desired false confessions (al-Libi re SH-AQ connection, for example), that I’m of a mind to let them make the best cast they can. I suspect even after doing that, it will still not amount to a shit hill of beans. So let them do it & prove themselves for the idiots and ghouls they are.

    It’s like the Iraq WMD case. After I’d chased down arguements pro and con, it turned out the pro case was paper thin. And then, as I was fairly certain, there were no WMDs. The info to date on any useful information the U.S. got from torture is even thinner. So let them reveal all.

  20. Gitcheegumee says:

    CIA officer identity revealed:

    Identity of CIA Officer Responsible for pre-9/11 Failures, Tora …Sep 11, 2009 … Clarke is White House counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke, who Blee met with to discuss the an impending al-Qaeda attack in the summer of …
    hcgroups.wordpress.com/…/identity-of-cia-officer-responsible-for-pre-911-failures-tora-bora-escape-rendition-to-torture-revealed/ – 14 hours ago – Similar

  21. Gasman says:

    Ever since the earliest attempts to gin up support for a war in Iraq began, President Cheney/Bush and their lackeys have constantly used ever shifting goalposts as their standards. They changed from week to week. Lately it seems as if they change sentence to sentence.

    The only way ANY documents will prove them correct is if we fully accept their interpretation of the documents in question. If they are not granted full editorial license, the documents will never support their version of reality.

    If we don’t prosecute these clowns then we should extradite them to another country that will.

    • eCAHNomics says:

      Yes but the WMD agrument was proved definitely wrong. I think the same thing will prove definitely wrong about the Useful Info Obtained By Torture (UIOBT) story, even with their shifting goalposts. So let them do their worst. It’s just a delaying tactic. We should encourage them in their efforts. See also my 25. The sooner they are allowed to do what they want to do, the sooner their perfidy will be revealed.

  22. Hmmm says:

    How curious then that Democracy Now should report the following today:

    Ex-CIA, NSA Director Appointed to Declassification Panel

    Controversy is brewing over the appointment of a top Bush administration official to a White House advisory panel on declassification. Michael Hayden, the former director of the National Security Agency and later the Central Intelligence Agency, has been tapped to join the Public Interest Declassification Board. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell appointed Hayden during the August recess. Hayden oversaw the Bush administration’s warrantless spy program and aggressively backed CIA practices including secret prisons and extraordinary rendition. He has recently opposed the release of government memos authorizing the use of torture, saying their disclosure would harm national security.

    Quelle coincidence!

      • Hmmm says:

        Thus spake WaPo:

        The nine-member declassification board was established by Congress a decade ago. Five members are appointed by the president and one each by the House speaker and minority leader, as well as the Senate majority and minority leaders. Currently, seven members have been appointed by Republicans and two by Democrats.

        7:2. Now there’s a reassuring ratio.

        • ghostof911 says:

          Unbelievable. Thanks for pointing that out, no one could have imagined.

          What is to prevent Obama from dismissing the five current presidential appointees and instating five of his own?

  23. Gitcheegumee says:

    @28

    History Commons GroupsSeptember 11, 2009
    Identity of CIA Officer Responsible for pre-9/11 Failures, Tora Bora Escape, Rendition to Torture Revealed

    The name of the CIA officer who ran Alec Station, the agency’s bin Laden unit, in the run-up to 9/11 can be revealed. Known by a variety of aliases in the media until now, such as “Rich” in Steve Coll’s Ghost Wars, “Richard” in the 9/11 Commission report and “Rich B” in George Tenet’s At the Center of the Storm, his real name is Richard Blee.

    Blee was a key figure in the pre-9/11 intelligence failures, the CIA station chief in Afghanistan when Osama bin Laden escaped from Tora Bora and instrumental in setting up the Bush administration’s rendition and torture policies.

    Blee is mentioned several times in the 9/11 Commission’s files, but his name is always redacted, as it has been in the media until now. However, in one case the people doing the redactions let it slip past them.

    His name is disclosed on page 41 of the notes, where a comment says: “No one anticipated (well a few like Clarke, Black, Blee) what these people would do, or their single-minded determination, or that it would adapt to events and change to be more lethal.”

    Clarke is White House counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke, who Blee met with to discuss the an impending al-Qaeda attack in the summer of 2001. Black is Cofer Black, the head of the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center (CTC) and Blee’s boss at the time.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(link address in original comment)

  24. Gitcheegumee says:

    History Commons Groups
    The notes were found along with thousands of other 9/11 Commission files at the National Archives by History Commons contributor Erik Larson, who uploaded …
    hcgroups.wordpress.com/ – Cached – Similar

  28. ghostof911 says:

    Last night from Ray McGovern, 27 year CIA veteran.

    “Let me just leave you with this thought,” he said, “and that is that I think Panetta, and to a degree President Obama, are afraid — I never thought I’d hear myself saying this — I think they’re afraid of the CIA.”…

  30. Gasman says:

    Dick Cheney could settle this whole affair by agreeing to be polygraphed live on national TV. Only three questions would be necessary:

    “Vice President Cheney, did you ever knowingly lie to the congress or the American people regarding the rationale for going to war with Iraq? Did you ever knowingly lie to the congress or the American people regarding the torture of U.S. detainees? Is it your view that torture is legal under existing U.S. law?”

    Even one so well versed in lying as Cheney would be hard pressed to pass the test with those questions. If he can pass the test, he’s off the hook. If not, prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law.

Comments are closed.