Posts

The Changing Story on Past Torture Investigations

/in /by

Two months ago, when the torture apologists looked like they were succeeding in preventing a torture investigation, they claimed to a credulous Jeffrey Smith that the CIA IG Report "did not provoke a specific CIA "referral" to the department suggesting an investigation of potential criminal liability, and no such investigation was undertaken at the time." Of course, that claim conflicted with the CIA IG’s own admission that documents show a total of five criminal referrals made over the course of the investigation.

Well, now that it looks more likely that Eric Holder will launch an investigation, the CIA claims that DOJ investigated 20 criminal referrals. 

"This has all been reviewed and dealt with before," says Paul Gimigliano, a CIA spokesman.

After the IG report reached Justice, a task force was set up in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Alexandria, Va., that reviewed about 20 criminal referrals of detainee abuse sent over by the CIA and military criminal investigators. Officials familiar with the referrals have said they were horrific: one involves allegations that a naked prisoner in CIA custody in Afghanistan froze to death after being left in a prison known as the "salt pit."

But task-force prosecutors say they ran into a host of problems, including a lack of witnesses and forensic evidence, and declined to prosecute in all but one case. "We wanted to make these cases, but they just weren’t there," says Rob Spencer, the former career Justice prosecutor who headed the task force until 2006. Ken Melson, who oversaw Spencer’s work and was appointed by Holder as acting Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives director, says the cases were "looked at aggressively" and without political pressure. "I think we made the right decision on these cases," he says.

Of course, all three claims are likely true: CIA made no "specific referrals" … "when the report was finished," but did make five referrals over the course of the investigation. And, once it took a look at the report (and probably once it looked at a bunch of military referrals), DOJ reviewed 20 cases. It’s funny, though, how zero can become five can become twenty as the need for different spin arises.

Read more →

Liz “BabyDick” Cheney Returns

/in , , /by

It was inevitable. Given the news over the weekend that DOJ might investigate PapaDick Cheney, we had to expect Liz "BabyDick" Cheney would be out again defending her Daddy (and, just as inevitably, the press would give her the soap box to do so).

But as more and more investigations start to focus on her Daddy, BabyDick sounds more and more pathetic. For example, here’s her attempt to scold Democrats for upholding the rule of law.

CHENEY: His reaction to the story that we may well be prosecuting folks, I’m happy to talk about that. … You know, he is very angry, as you’ve heard him say publicly. You know the notion that this administration is going to come into office and they’re going to prosecute the brave men and women who carried out this program that kept America safe. It is, it is un-American. It’s something that hasn’t happened before in this country, in terms of somebody taking office and then starting to prosecute people who carried out policies that they disagreed with, you know, in the previous administration. He’s been very public about that.[my emphasis]

Um, no. Depending on who you ask, Holder is considering prosecuting either those who overstepped the stated policy and/or those–like her Daddy–who ignored the law when they developed that policy. But BabyDick has to characterize a potential investigation in terms that conflict with everything Obama and Holder have said about a torture investigation so people don’t note that her–and her Daddy’s–cries of "un-American!!" are really just self-serving claptrap.

As if it would be un-American to tell PapaDick he has to follow the law.

Not only didn’t he–as the guy who redirected efforts in Afghanistan to an illegal war of choice in Iraq–keep us safe. But just about everything he did was un-American.

The Scope of the (Hypothetical) Torture Investigation

/in /by

It was just last night that Newsweek floated the notion of a torture investigation, and we’re already into a hot debate about the scope of any (thus far still hypothetical) investigation. Here are the posts you should read:

  • Tim F @BalloonJuice arguing that an investigation of just the torturers who exceeded guidelines would be worse than no investigation
  • Spencer@Attackerman arguing that focusing on the CIA–rather than the decision-makers–would be wrong
  • Glenn@Salon cataloging the different stories about scope–and arguing that if the investigation focuses on CIA it’ll be Abu Ghraib redux

Glenn and Spencer both point to Scott Horton–reporting that there is unlikely to be such a limit on scope–in an article I’ll look at in some detail below.

My take–one derived from some weeds–is that if Holder approves an investigation, it’ll be unlikely to just take on low-level CIA interrogators.

First, consider who we’re talking about. We’re not, actually, talking about low level CIA interrogators. We’re talking about contractors. James Mitchell, to be exact. And if James Mitchell is not the psychologist/interrogator who acknowledged he had exceeded the limits set by John Yoo’s Bybee Memo, but justified it by saying he had exceeded those limits (by using way more water, for longer time, and pressing on the detainee’s gut) because those things make the simulated drowning technique "for real–and … more poignant and convincing," then it’s almost certainly someone who works for James Mitchell and probably used to work for the DOD entity that administers SERE.

I, frankly, have no problem with prosecuting Mr. Poignant the sadist torturer and, given his acknowledgment that he exceeded Yoo’s guidelines, that’s probably where an investigation would start.

Now, as I said, Mr. Poignant is either James Mitchell or someone associated with him–the "psychologist/interrogator" strongly suggests this person is a contractor, not a CIA employee.

That means that going after Mr. Poignant gets you, in either one step or two, to the contractors who worked from the start to profit off torture.

And that gets you, almost immediately, to the process that the torture architects used to authorize their torture. That’s because there is a paper trail showing that the torture architects knew and intended the torture to exceed even Yoo’s memo. This is a document that both Jim Haynes and John Rizzo had and–between the two of them–gave to John Yoo during the drafting process for the Bybee Memo as the basis for his description of waterboarding.

Read more →

Ambinder on Holder

/in , /by

There’s enough new reporting in this Ambinder piece (commenting on this Klaidman piece covered in this post) that it merits its own post.

First, there’s this description of the division of labor among Obama’s top lawyers.

When Obama asked Holder, a longtime friend, to become attorney general, Holder extracted a promise — perhaps extracted is too tough of a term because Obama readily agreed — that the White House would not interfere with the Department’s decisions about whether to launch investigations, according to two people with knowledge of the encounter. When it comes to setting and refining judicial policy, the White House counsel’s office plays the lead role. But Holder and his deputies get to decide whom to prosecute.

Now, I’m suspicious of Holder, but loathe all I know of Greg Craig, so this sparked my concern. I’m really curious, you lawyer types … Is it normal for the White House Counsel to "set and refine judicial policy"? Has Holder really become nothing but a glorified mega-prosecutor? (I can understand why he extracted this policy, having seconded Janet Reno, but still.)

And then there’s this loaded passage.

On the one hand, it is tough to see a prosecutor being given a mandate to determine whether former Vice President Dick Cheney ordered CIA officials to not brief Congress on a highly sensitive, classified intelligence collection program given the very real chance that the national security damage resulting from the disclosure of information about the program might be significant.

Nonetheless, it’s doubtful that Holder would lean into a decision in such a public way unless he was ready to consider an option that may well have significant ramifications for the country and lay a strong precedent for future administrations.

Since the beginning of his presidential transition, Obama has been counseled by his attorneys that any such investigation is likely to be incomplete, resulting in people being charged with sins they participated it but did not originate. Even senior Justice Department officials admit that the possibility of an elected White House decision-maker like the Vice President being charged with a crime is remote.  Obama would rather not see middle managers prosecuted for decisions, or crimes, of elected officials or senior political appointees. And he is very concerned with precedent.  But this will not be his decision to make.

I’m not entirely sure what that middle paragraph means. But I’m curious by the third and the first.

Everyone–everyone–seems to know Read more →

Holder v. Rahm: The Torture Fight

/in /by

rahmemanuel1113.thumbnail.jpgThe headline news in Dennis Klaidman’s long piece on Eric Holder is that Holder may appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate torture.

Four knowledgeable sources tell NEWSWEEK that he is now leaning toward appointing a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration’s brutal interrogation practices, something the president has been reluctant to do. While no final decision has been made, an announcement could come in a matter of weeks, say these sources, who decline to be identified discussing a sensitive law-enforcement matter.

But the whole piece is worth reading for two other reasons: the drama it paints between Holder and Rahm (and the White House political agenda more generally), and the details it gives about the torture policy thus far.

Rahm v. Holder

First, Rahm.  Even to the extent to which the profile of Holder here reads like a puff piece, the entire piece is driven with two, related, narrative conflicts: Holder’s regret over the Marc Rich pardon.

And though Holder has bluntly acknowledged that he "blew it," the Rich decision haunts him. Given his professional roots, he says, "the notion that you would take actions based on political considerations runs counter to everything in my DNA."

And the tension of working for a Rahm-driven White House.

Any White House tests an attorney general’s strength. But one run by Rahm Emanuel requires a particular brand of fortitude. A legendary enforcer of presidential will, Emanuel relentlessly tries to anticipate political threats that could harm his boss. He hates surprises. That makes the Justice Department, with its independent mandate, an inherently nervous-making place for Emanuel. During the first Clinton administration, he was famous for blitzing Justice officials with phone calls, obsessively trying to gather intelligence, plant policy ideas, and generally keep tabs on the department.

One of his main interlocutors back then was Holder.

[snip]

"Rahm’s style is often misunderstood," says Holder. "He brings a rigor and a discipline that is a net plus to this administration." For his part, Emanuel calls Holder a "strong, independent attorney general." But Emanuel’s agitated presence hangs over the building—"the wrath of Rahm," one Justice lawyer calls it—and he is clearly on the minds of Holder and his aides as they weigh whether to launch a probe into the Bush administration’s interrogation policies.

In spite of the reported warmth between the two, Rahm is depicted as opposing a torture investigation. And there’s a remarkable anonymous quote in the article that contextually appears to be Rahm, Read more →

Did Obama Flip-Flop on FISA to Protect John Brennan?

/in /by

Aside from his career of moderate political stances, the earliest clue that progressives were going to be disappointed with Barack Obama came last July, when he flip-flopped on his previous promises to oppose retroactive immunity on FISA. Yesterday’s IG Report may reveal the source of Obama’s flip-flop and subsequent reversal of his stance that Bush’s domestic surveillance program was illegal: John Brennan.

Brennan, you see, appears to have been a key figure in the illegal surveillance program from at least May 2003 through December 2005–precisely the period when the program was such an object of controversy internally.

While it was apparent from the Scope of the IG Report released in March and the various declarations in support of State Secrets that the Intelligence Community provided threat assessments that were used in the program, the IG Report provides a great deal of new detail on this process and–more importantly–a chronology describing which element of the IC conducted the threat assessments. The chronology is:

October 2001 to May 2003: DCI Chief of Staff (then John Moseman)

May 2003 to August 2004: Terrorist Threat Integration Center

August 2004 to April 2005: National CounterTerrorism Center

April 2005 to January 2007: ODNI

Now look at John Brennan’s career path (these dates are somewhat vague, but accurate to the best of my knowledge):

March 2001 to May 2003: Deputy Executive Director, CIA

May 2003 to August 2004: Director, Terrorist Threat Integration Center

August 2004 to December 2005: Interim Director, National CounterTerrorism Center (including ODNI after April 2005)

While Spencer is right that John Brennan was not the guy who compiled these assessments when the program first began (that is, John Brennan was no longer DCI COS), Brennan appears to have overseen the units that conducted the threat assessments that were a key part of the illegal program from May 2003 at least until August 2004, and possibly up until he left ODNI in December 2005, just days before the NYT broke this story.

For at least a year and possibly two, John Brennan appears to have been the guy inventing "reasonable cause" to wiretap people in the United States. John Brennan was also likely the guy who put together the list of groups considered al Qaeda affiliates (including al-Haramain) that could be wiretapped.

And John Brennan was consulting with candidate Obama last year when Obama flip-flopped.

And John Brennan remains a key national security advisor for Obama as the President has cowardly refused to prosecute a program he himself once called illegal.

Are Obama and Eric Holder refusing to prosecute illegal domestic surveillance because they’re protecting a key member of Obama’s Administration? Read more →

Holder Refuses to Stand By Statements Saying Violating FISA Breaks the Law

/67 Comments/in /by

By far the most disturbing part of the Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing today came when Russ Feingold asked Eric Holder whether he stands by a statement he made before the American Constitution Society last year.

In the midst of a speech that repeated "rule of law" like a Greek Chorus, after introducing this passage from his speech by saying certain steps taken by the Bush Administration "were unlawful," Holder said, "I never thought a President would act in direct defiance of federal law by authorizing warrantless NSA surveillance of American citizens."

When Feingold asked Holder whether he stands by that statement, Holder ignored the early part of his speech where he described all of Bush’s abuses to be "unlawful," and instead tried to claim he was narrowly saying that Bush simply "contravened" FISA.

FEINGOLD: On another topic, I wrote to the president on Monday about my continued concern that the administration has not formally withdrawn certain legal opinions, including the January 2006 white paper that provided the justification for the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. At the letter was prompted in part by a recent speech that I’m sure you’re aware of by the director of national intelligence in which he asserted that the program was not illegal, but he later clarified that.

In a speech to the American Constitutional Society in June 2008, you, sir, set the following. "I never thought that I would see the day when a president would act in direct defiance of federal law by authorizing warrantless NSA surveillance of American citizens."

And the president himself also several times as a senator and during the campaign said the program was illegal. Now that you are the attorney general, is there any doubt in your mind that the warrantless wiretapping program was illegal?

HOLDER: Well, I think that the warrantless wiretapping program as it existed at that point was certainly unwise in that it was put together without the approval of Congress and as a result did not have all the protections, all the strength that it might have had behind it, as — as I think it now exists with regard to having had congressional approval of it. So I think that the concerns that I expressed in that speech no longer exist because of the action that Congress has taken in regard…

FEINGOLD: But I asked you, Mr. Attorney General, not whether it was unwise, but whether you consider it to be an illegal, because that’s certainly the implication of what you said in the quote I read and the explicit statement of the man who is now president of the United States.

Read more →

CIA Now Reviewing OPR Report on Yoo, Bybee, and Bradbury

/20 Comments/in /by

Sheldon Whitehouse revealed raised during today’s Department of Justice oversight hearing that the CIA is now reviewing the results of the Office of Professional Responsibility report on John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and Steven Bradbury’s role in authorizing torture.

Whitehouse: CIA was given a opportunity for substantive comment and classification review. Is it now the CIA that is holding up the release of the report?

Eric Holder claimed that the CIA’s review was not holding up the report. But when asked whether or not DOJ was ensuring that those at CIA reviewing the document had clean hands on torture, Holder twice did not answer, and ultimately said he wasn’t worried whether those involved in torture get to make substantive comment on the OPR report.

Whitehouse: Role of CIA in substantive comment and in classification review, interesting conflicts of interest. What assurances from CIA that those who seek to influence OPR report through substantive comment or those who have effect of delaying report are not complicit or involved in underlying conduct. Have you got a clean scrub of those at CIA who are involved in program?

Holder: As complete a report as we can. Declassify as much as we can. Full feeling of what it is that OLC lawyers dealt with. Pushing to declassify as much as we can. 

Whitehouse: Doesnt’ address question of whatever assurances from CIA that in discharge of review role the people involved in that had clean hands WRT this program and are giving untainted advice.

Holder: We haven’t gotten anything yet. This may not be an issue at all.  Will interact with Panetta. Want to have as much declassified as possible.

Whitehouse: And on question of substantive comments? Is it not important that CIA should be doing so in manner that keeps agencies hands clean.

Holder: I’m actually less worried about substantive comments.

Whitehouse: Would they be likely to look at substantive comments differently if CIA had not kept report from people with clean hands.

Holder: Fact-driven. Conclusion that one draws from the facts, Justice Department’s view of facts that we have uncovered.

In other words, no, Holder doesn’t find it problematic that someone like John Rizzo–who remains the Acting General Counsel at CIA and who made apparently false declarations to OLC in 2002 when it first approved torture–gets a chance to review the OPR report.

Read more →

Holder SJC Oversight Hearing Liveblog

/52 Comments/in /by

Leahy talking about the things that Holder has accomplished: improvements in civil rights, recovery funds to law enforcement. Talks about the things that need to improve: state secrets, press, healthcare fraud, hate crimes. Troubled about continuation of Bush Administration’s practice of invoking state secrets to shut down wrong-doing. Access to courts is important. Safely and effectively closing Gitmo. Reviewing the bad terrorists that we have held: Timothy McVeigh, Sheikh Adbul Rahman, Zacarias Moussaoui.

"The idea that we cannot find a place to house 250 detainees is not rational." 

Leahy calling on hate crimes bill. 

Sessions: Starts by talking about details of Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings. Disappointed–put Constitution and rule of law above politics. I don’t think the actions we’ve seen so far are consistent. I find myself reading about political appointees who have overruled career attorneys. Rejected OLC that Congress’ recent legislation on DC voting was unconstitutional. [Well, Sessions, if you would approve Dawn Johnsen, then maybe Holder would listen to OLC?] Pressure from the left when you allowed DOJ to release OLC opinions on torture. 

[blah blah blah: Sessions demagoguing.]

[career attorneys career attorneys career attorneys–Sessions is pretending that these people weren’t burrowed in by Rove and Cheney]

[pre-9/11 pre-9/11 pre-9/11 pre-9/11]

Jeff Sessions pronounces it "Fo-Toes."

Holder: Highest priority to protect against acts of terrorism. Close Gitmo. Southwest threat–drug cartels. Civil Rights. Foreclosure scams. Finance fraud. Healthcare fraud.

Leahy: Black Panther. I understand a career employee made the final decision of which people to charge. I thought I’d point that out–want to have the facts here. Injunction against person who was intimidating on decisions. [huh?] President’s nominee in Civil Rights. [Don’t know if he said OLC too] Holocaust shooting. Open and classified filings, number of hate crimes and positions more vile. 

Holder: If any doubt about need for legislation, wiped out by Holocaust and other hate crimes. 10 years ago I testified in favor of this bill. Expands scope of federal hate crimes to include gender, disability, sexual orientation. 

Leahy: NYT’s latest story on wiretapping. I don’t know how we justify continuing these expansive authorities, even expanded authorities being abused.

Holder: Work closely to ensure that national security conducted consistent with legal authorities. Framework that we always try to follow. Congress establishes safeguards. "really strict guidelines."

Leahy: The more we find out, not from the intelligence agencies, not from government, but NYT, we get it quicker, more detail, and we get the crossword puzzle. I don’t know how Read more →

Russ Feingold Throws Vaughn Walker a Softball

/31 Comments/in /by

With this letter:

I am writing to reiterate my request for you to formally and promptly renounce the assertions of executive authority made by the Bush Administration with regard to warrantless wiretapping.  As a United States Senator, you stated clearly and correctly that the warrantless wiretapping program was illegal.  Your Attorney General expressed the same view, both as a private citizen and at his confirmation hearing.

It is my hope that you will formally confirm this position as president, which is why I sent you a letter on April 29, 2009, urging your administration to withdraw the unclassified and highly flawed January 19, 2006, Department of Justice Legal Authorities Supporting the Activities of the National Security Agency Described by the President (“NSA Legal Authorities White Paper”), as well as to withdraw and declassify any other memoranda providing legal justifications for the program.  Particularly in light of two recent events, I am concerned that failure to take these steps may be construed by those who work for you as an indication that these justifications were and remain valid. 

On June 8, Director of National Intelligence Blair asserted in a speech and in response to a question from a reporter that the warrantless wiretapping program “wasn’t illegal.” His office subsequently clarified that he did not intend to make a legal judgment and that he had meant to convey only that the program was authorized by the president and the Department of Justice.  Nonetheless, Director Blair’s remarks – which directly contravene your earlier position, as well as the position of Attorney General Holder – risk conveying to the Intelligence Community, whose job it is to explore legally available surveillance options, that not complying with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act may be such an option.  Moreover, his “clarification” highlights the need to formally renounce the legal justification that the “White Paper” provides. 

In addition, I asked your nominee to be General Counsel for the Director of National Intelligence, whether, based on the “White Paper” and other public sources, he believed that the warrantless wiretapping program was legal.  His written response to my question, which was presumably vetted by your administration, indicated that, because the program was classified, he could not offer an opinion.  Should he be confirmed, this position, too, risks conveying to the Intelligence Community that there may be classified justifications for not complying with FISA.  As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee who has seen all of the legal justifications, classified and unclassified, that were offered in defense of the warrantless wiretapping program, I strongly disagree with this implication. 

Read more →