Remember the Torture Tapes?

Just about everyone is talking about ABC’s confirmation of what we already knew: the torture was approved–in excruciating detail–by the most senior members of the Bush Administration.

In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News.

The so-called Principals who participated in the meetings also approved the use of "combined" interrogation techniques — using different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time — on terrorist suspects who proved difficult to break, sources said.

Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects — whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.

The high-level discussions about these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed — down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.

The advisers were members of the National Security Council’s Principals Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise President Bush on issues of national security policy.

At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Now, the article is actually incredibly vague about which of the high-value detainees the Principals discussed interrogating. For example, it suggests that Abu Zubaydah’s torture was planned by the Principals. But then–where elsewhere it asserts that all of the Principals approved the torture–it backs off that claim specifically with regards to Zubaydah.

But after Zubaydah recovered from his wounds at a secret CIA prison in Thailand, he was uncooperative.

[snip]

The CIA wanted to use more aggressive — and physical — methods to get information.

The agency briefed high-level officials in the National Security Council’s Principals Committee, led by then-National Security Advisor Rice and including then-Attorney General Ashcroft, which then signed off on the plan, sources said. It is unclear whether anyone on the committee objected to the CIA’s plans for Zubaydah.

"The agency" briefed the Principals Committee (note the briefers remain unnamed), which, as a group signed off on the plan. But rather than asserting (as the article does elsewhere) that "sources said that at each discussion, all the Principals present approved," the specific discussion of Zubaydah notes that, "it is unclear whether anyone on the committee objected to the CIA’s plans for Zubaydah."

Immediately after the discussion of Zubaydah, the article goes on to discuss Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s waterboarding without stating one way or another whether the Principals approved the details of his torture, either.

Now I don’t mean to suggest that the Principals did not approve the water-boarding of Zubaydah and KSM–or of any other torture subject. I’m perfectly willing to believe that all of the Principals approved such things, even Powell.

I’m raising the alternating specificity and vagueness of this story to suggest certain things about its probable purpose. Ask yourself, where did this story come from? Who are the "highly-placed sources" behind this story?

Those who actually received the briefings would be limited to the Principals–who would have no incentive to admit they approved of torture–and their deputies (so, Libby, Stephen Hadley, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, John McLaughlin, and Larry Thompson, then Comey–though given the Administration’s habit of excluding Thompson from sensitive details, I wouldn’t assume that he was included). I could see Armitage revealing embarrassing details about Cheney, but not ones that implicated Powell; and McLaughlin I’ll put aside for the moment. As for the others, at least one of them has been willing to get convicted of a felony rather than rat on his boss, so I doubt they’re sources for this story.

Then there are the people who did the briefing: "CIA directors Tenet and later Porter Goss along with agency lawyers." Now we’re getting someplace.

Porter Goss, though he hasn’t AFAIK gone on the record once during the discussions of the torture tapes, has been feeding regular leaks to the press throughout. And Scott Muller–General Counsel of the CIA until 2004–has told journalists working on the torture tape story that he opposed the destruction of the tapes. John Rizzo–acting General Counsel after Muller left–has been less adept at working the press than Goss and Muller, though he has made it clear that junior lawyers at the CIA, not him, gave Jose Rodriguez the green light to destroy the torture tapes. All three men would be closely questioned in the DOJ investigation of the destruction of the torture tapes.

Add in the fact that the single named source in this story is John Kiriakou–the same guy who appeared on ABC to admit that the CIA had water-boarded just as the whole torture tape story was breaking (Kiriakou also worked for Robert Grenier in 2003, though I don’t know if he was still working for him when Grenier was reportedly fired for opposing enhanced torture).

In other words, the most likely people behind this story are the same people who were working diligently, in December and January, to make sure the CIA alone did not pay for the destruction of the torture tapes.

This story does not–as earlier stories have–list the lawyers at the White House who were briefed on the torture tapes: Condi’s NSA lawyer John Bellinger, Cheney’s lawyer Addington, and Bush’s lawyer Alberto Gonzales.

Rather, it strongly suggests (without, finally, asserting it directly) that the President’s top aides–the Principals those three lawyers were expected to protect–approved every method used with Abu Zubaydah. That is, the President’s top aides approved of everything that would have been revealed on the torture tapes, had they not been destroyed. Additionally–with the placement of John Ashcroft in the meetings–it puts DOJ at the center of discussions approving all the methods used (though of course Alberto Gonzales, and not Ashcroft, was in charge of DOJ during the destruction of the tapes).

What this article does–aside from tell us what we already knew–is explain why the top lawyers in the Administration would have a motive to approve of the destruction of the torture tapes. And heck, while we’re at it, it pressures those same top lawyers to try to stop the inquiry, to prevent any more damning details (Bush’s participation?) get leaked to ABC.

You don’t suppose John Durham’s investigation is honing in on the CIA, do you?

image_print
254 replies
    • bobschacht says:

      “The CIA is determined not to hang alone.”

      The two elephants in the room have always been Cheney and the CIA. To switch animal metaphors, I think of the battle between the gators and the Amazonian pythons in the Florida Everglades. At home, I have a picture of the results of one such duel: The python swallowed the gator, but the gator in its death throes tore open the python’s stomach, exposing the gator’s legs and tail, and killing the python. That’s how I think of Cheney and the CIA. I think that eventually, they will destroy each other, except that the CIA, as an institution, will re-constitute itself under some other name, because it has to. But Cheney will be taken down by the enemies that he has made in the CIA.

      Which reminds me– I don’t think we have heard the last from George Tenet yet, but we’ll probably hear more from him next year.

      Bob in HI

      • Minnesotachuck says:

        I just this morning finished reading Tim Weiner’s history of the CIA, Legacy of Ashes, and if he’s at all on point there’s not much left of the CIA to hang. Furthermore, from it’s founding in the late 40s there was never nearly as much as their PR made you believe. A quite depressing read.

  1. DefendOurConstitution says:

    Criminals all. The list keeps getting longer. Will our Government have the guts to pursue the criminals or wil it be up to international/European courts?

  2. emptywheel says:

    You know, the more I think about it, this is an implicit threat to confirm Bush’s attendance in these sessions (and as the sadistic creep he is, how could he not). The President attends the Principals meetings–that’s their purpose, a discussion with the President.

    Ergo: implied threat. You get Durham to back off, or the President gets outed as the guy who approved the torture.

    • drational says:

      I agree a threat, but not about the President’s presence at these meetings.

      It is a startlingly unanswered question, but an obvious one.
      How could a reporter not ask and answer in print the question of whether the president .

      And since, as you note, “Just about everyone is talking about ABC’s confirmation of what we already knew”, the President might be asked directly at today’s 1030 presser.

      Someone is going to ask. There are just too many people who know the answer to this question to be a primary threat about whether Bush was there are not.

      The real threat is regarding WHAT ELSE the CI leaker knows about presidential complicity in badness…..

    • RevBev says:

      That was almost my first thought when I began to hear the story; this is the man who laughed about the execution of Carla Faye in TX. Isn’t his history kiling animals? Yes, sadistic, and one can envision him laughing and getting off on the torture images. Thanks for your commentary.

      • JohnJ says:

        and one can envision him laughing and getting off on the torture images

        Could the tapes have contained chimpy’s laugh over the intercom while the victim was screaming? Or maybe the cheering of the whole group? Is that why they needed to be distroyed in spite of the admission of what was done?

        I’d like to claim that was snark, but now?

        • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

          You were more succinct than I.
          That’s also my worry.

          Why else try to ensure the absolute destruction of those tapes?
          It’s too bizarre. Particularly given what anyone who pays attention knows about GWBush’s history.

          • JohnJ says:

            Since we pretty much know the techniques they used, they didn’t destroy the tapes to cover what they did, that leaves other stuff that is being covered up.

            interrogator: “..yes Mr. President, he knows that last one was from you…”

            • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

              You and I are thinking in parallel.

              JThomason @35, a number of their firewalls are already swiss-cheesy, and here’s hoping the lynchpin is soon demolished. Corruption this deep is simply not sufficient to sustain itself over any period of time; and we’ve already seen plenty of rats leave on the earlier lifeboats.

            • MarkH says:

              Since we pretty much know the techniques they used, they didn’t destroy the tapes to cover what they did, that leaves other stuff that is being covered up.

              interrogator: “..yes Mr. President, he knows that last one was from you…”

              At the first mention of the technology which could have allowed someone in America to observe or participate in these torture sessions it occurred to me that this administration has always outdone whatever strange things we’ve imagined — in horrendous ways.

              Now, what I have to wonder is even more far out, more disgusting — is it possible there is a group, more far-reaching than those in the White House, who are ‘invited’ to observe? Is it possible this is another sick interest group of these Bushies? What would be the buy-in to get in on one of those conference calls?

              The mind reels at just how awful this is and how far it could go.

    • drational says:

      I think, by Ashcroft, the President is outed:

      “Why are we talking about this in the White House?”

      Cheney has an office at the White House, but would Ashcroft really be surprised to be talking about torture in Cheney’s office?

      • Brisingamen says:

        The Vice President does not have “an office in the White House.” The VP’s office is across the street in what is called the “Old Executive Building.”

        Depending on how many people were in attendance at this particular meeting, it was probably held in the Situation Room…

  3. JTMinIA says:

    My understanding of the expected defense of the destruction of the tapes goes as this: “since we were told (and believed) that the interrogations were legal, it wasn’t obstruction when we wiped the tapes.”

    The main problem with this defense is that there was some court order already in effect to protect all information relevant to possible torture.

    I’m not sure about the reply to the latter issue, but could someone tell me if I have it straight so far? TIA

    • emptywheel says:

      See, I think there IS no defense, and that’s why we’re seeing this come out.

      The biggest question is, did the CIA adequately shield people like Rizzo–who had to have known about the ongoing requests for information–from the two lawyers who, in principle but not in fact, approved the destruction? I doubt it.

      And have Durham’s investigators found the Negroponte letter telling Goss not to destroy the tapes, and have they proven that Goss could have–but didn’t–stop the destruction.

      Once you have that, you have criminal liability from someone, probably both Rizzo and Goss.

      So the idea with this leak is to 1) try to convince the WH to shut down the investigation, and 2) to signal that they will go after DOJ’s complicity in the torture if it comes to a trial.

      • bmaz says:

        See, I think there IS no defense, and that’s why we’re seeing this come out.

        No, there is no defense. There never was. All the parsing and tripe over court orders here and there is, and always has been superfluous icing on the destruction of evidence/obstruction of justice cake. The simple fact of the matter is that the tapes were material evidence as to the “cases” of the subjects of the taped torture/interrogations themselves. There is no argument around this, and thus no defense.

        As to the thought by those above (29, 33 and 34) um, no, I don’t think it credible to think there is a laugh track or other evidence on the tapes from chimps or principles. Among other reasons, or at least possible reasons, my guess is that the tapes would not only have graphically demonstrated what occurred (remember everyone knew about abu-Gharaib, but the pictures cast the die), but more importantly, I think they would have demonstrated conclusively the worthlessness of the information received from the torture. That would be the death stroke for the torture-meisters.

        • whitewidow says:

          Agree. Something that bothers me about the ABC piece is the way that several times they work in statements to make it seem like it was worth it. Much like Kiriakou when he made the rounds, the message is “we were just doing it to protect you” and “we got information that stopped more attacks” and “we got them to spill”.

          All designed to muddy the waters and get the public to think that maybe it was o.k.

          I heard that the first episode of “24″ this season will feature Jack Bauer testifying in congress, want to guess what his character will say?

    • NCDem says:

      And there goes the very last shred of dignity that Colin Powell ever had.

      This also gives more emphasis on the most recent interview that Powell gave where he heaps praise on all three candidates. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket if you may find someone sitting on you. On this issue, Powell and McCain appear to speak on both sides of the issue.

  4. martha says:

    And, obviously the CIA’s lawyers didn’t believe Yoo et al.’s selective lawyering but couldn’t out-maneuver them. So they had to find a way to protect themselves for what they were being ordered to do. I have no illusions about the CIA and what they do, but good grief.

    Also, this is such classic corporate warfare. Been there, witnessed that. Never underestimate the strategic abilities of upper middle management. They’re smarter and they’ll find a way to rip the veil that shields their masters. It may take longer than anyone wishes, but it happens.

  5. Nell says:

    I’ve been trying to remember who the deputies were; thanks for that list.

    My thought about the source was different, based on this passage:


    Then-Attorney General Ashcroft was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.

    According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: “Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.”

    That is, Ashcroft himself. But your agency theory holds more water.

    • brendanx says:

      Maybe authorial laziness, but their wording is the same as Ashcroft’s:

      “Sources said the extraordinary involvement of the senior advisers in the grim details of exactly how individual interrogations would be conducted showed how seriously officials took the al Qaeda threat.”

      • emptywheel says:

        Probably not. Since he’s no longer in govt, it’s a matter of reaching his private spokesperson (as with Powell). In spite of this Administration’s arrogance wrt the press, an Admin spokesperson is going to be obliged to at least no comment in timely fashion. Ashcroft’s spokesperson has no such obligation, even if he is getting millions in handouts from DOJ.

    • brendanx says:

      That “History” quote, a gratuitous injection of “conscience” into the story, flatters him.

    • emptywheel says:

      The timing on this is rather fascinating. As I note, they lack details for the briefings pertaining to Zubaydah, which would have happened in 2002. But they have a great deal of specificity for a 2003 briefing and a 2004 briefing.

      At one meeting in the summer of 2003 — attended by Vice President Cheney, among others — Tenet made an elaborate presentation for approval to combine several different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time, according to a highly placed administration source.

      A year later, amidst the outcry over unrelated abuses of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the controversial 2002 legal memo, which gave formal legal authorization for the CIA interrogation program of the top al Qaeda suspects, leaked to the press. A new senior official in the Justice Department, Jack Goldsmith, withdrew the legal memo — the Golden Shield — that authorized the program.

      But the CIA had captured a new al Qaeda suspect in Asia. Sources said CIA officials that summer returned to the Principals Committee for approval to continue using certain “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

      Then-National Security Advisor Rice, sources said, was decisive. Despite growing policy concerns — shared by Powell — that the program was harming the image of the United States abroad, sources say she did not back down, telling the CIA: “This is your baby. Go do it.”

      Muller would presumably have been at those briefings. Don’t know about Rizzo, though.

      But also note, Bellinger, Gonzales, and Addington got a briefing on the torture tapes in early May 2004 (not summer, but close). Goldsmith left in July 2004 (announced his resignation in June 2004). And Tenet and McLaughlin (and, I think, Muller) left in the same June-July timeframe.

  6. yellowdog jim says:

    in educating myself about prosecutor Durham i found this illuminating:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Durham

    In December 2000, Durham revealed secret FBI documents that convinced a judge to toss out the 1968 murder convictions of Enrico Tameleo, Joseph Salvati, Peter J. Limone and Louis Greco because they had been framed by the agency. In 2007, the documents helped Salvati, Limone, and the families of the two other men – who died in prison – win a US$101.7 million civil judgment against the government.[4]

    Amid allegations that FBI informants James “Whitey” Bulger and Stephen “The Rifleman” Flemmi had corrupted their handlers, US Attorney General Janet Reno named Durham special prosecutor in 1999. He oversaw a task force of FBI agents brought in from other offices to investigate the Boston office’s handling of informants.[4]

    In 2002, Durham helped secure the conviction of retired FBI agent John J. Connolly Jr., who was sentenced to 10 years in prison on federal racketeering charges for protecting Bulger and Flemmi from prosecution and warning Bulger to flee just before the gangster’s 1995 indictment.[4]

    Durham’s task force also gathered evidence against retired FBI agent H. Paul Rico who was indicted in Oklahoma on state charges that he helped Bulger and Flemmi kill a Tulsa businessman in 1981. Rico died in 2004 before the case went to trial.[4]

    “Durham revealed secret FBI documents” were the words that struck me.

    so.

    i suppose
    “You don’t suppose John Durham’s investigation is focusing exclusively on the CIA, do you?”
    is like snark at the expense of the Times reporters?

    oh, yes, i see now:
    BeCause, jim, EW has just illuminated the cheneyBu$h co. snakes-in-the-grass at work: blaming the CIA and feeding these abc reporters.

    also, from March 28:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03…..ref=slogin

    All of the court challenges are playing out against the backdrop of the criminal investigation, led by a veteran prosecutor, John H. Durham, who is examining whether destruction of the tapes was an illegal obstruction of justice. A separate investigation by the House Intelligence Committee will soon begin interviewing officials from the White House and the C.I.A., possibly under subpoena, about their roles in the destruction of the tapes.

    my bold

    have i missed these house intel committee hearings yet?

    • emptywheel says:

      The House has interviewed Rodriguez and, I think, Rizzo–did it some time ago. But the lapse may be intended for the Durham investigation to first interview these witnesses, before the House gets involved. In any case, the House inquiry will not be public. And Hoekstra is sure to protect Goss, to the extent he can.

  7. JThomason says:

    There goes W’s plausible deniability. Remember his television appearance after the Abu Ghraib photos were released assuring the Arab world that the court martials would reveal that the actions depicted were those of “a few bad apples”.

    I am sure most of you remember but it needs to be stated. Has he been exposed in a more blatant act of dishonesty. Now there can be no doubt that he is complicit. Or should we accept that because we were at “war” the American public should have assumed he was lying?

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      Agree that GWBush’s, as well as Dick Cheney’s, ‘plausible deniability’ claims are almost in complete shreds at this point — at least, among the million plus of us who pay attention.

      One thing particularly worries me: two-way, interactive media were available in 2003, 2004, 2004… Technically, it was possible for Bush or Cheney to have viewed torture sessions. I’m not saying this occurred; I’m simply pointing out that the process of examining the scope of possible activities needs to include the possibility that individuals within the WH viewed (or, God forbid, interacted with) torture sessions.

      I hope that my suspicions are ill-founded and without merit. Nevertheless, the extreme measures taken by Bu$hCheney to ensure destruction of evidence tells any thinking person that whatever was on those tapes was utterly damning. Would those videotapes have revealed WH officials observed, commented on, or in any way interacted with those who carried out torture sessions?

      Again, I hope that my anxieties and suspicions are groundless. But beginning last fall when this first started to surface and heat up, GWBush began to look like a quivering puddle of nerves, which seems like a red flag.

      So question for Pelosi: if clear evidence of War Crimes by Bush and Cheney is produced, THEN would impeachment be ‘back on the table’?

      ————–
      OT, but Sad news over at Harpers.org/NoComment; Scott Horton, evidently exhausted by the demands of his workload + blogload, is packing it in with respect to the daily NoComment posts. Blogging (and being online so frequently) can be a health risk — everyone get a walk in today!

      • JThomason says:

        The firewall is already in place with legislation granting retroactive immunity for war crimes if I am not mistaken. It becomes clear then why the obstruction of justice angle EW suggests is the lynchpin.

        • bobschacht says:

          In response to readerOfTeaLeaves @ 32

          The firewall is already in place with legislation granting retroactive immunity for war crimes if I am not mistaken.

          What legislation are you referring to?

          Bob in HI

          • JThomason says:

            In response to a June 29, 2006, Supreme Court ruling that the
            President had exceeded the authority in his military order on the
            detention, treatment, and trial of non-citizens in the War on Terror,
            specifically those prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay, the
            Republican-controlled 109th Congress passed H.R. 6166. This bill
            severely undermined our nation’s moral standards and our moral
            authority, already jeopardized with our unilateral action in Iraq. The bill
            gave unwarranted authority to the President to interpret the meaning and
            application of the Geneva Conventions, and expanded the definition of
            “unlawful enemy combatant” while prohibiting such accused enemy
            combatants from invoking the right of Habeas Corpus. Further, the bill
            allowed for the securing of evidence gained through the use of torture or
            coercion before the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act of December
            30, 2005, and for the use of coercion after that date. Despite my
            opposition to the bill, the House and Senate passed this legislation and
            the President signed the bill on October 17, 2006, making it Public Law
            Number 109-366.

            This is excerpted from what my Congressman Tom Udall sent me late last summer in response to my questions concerning the possibility of impeaching the President. I will note that it took several months for him to reply. The jurisdiction of other countries in light of the failure to join the International Criminal Court and the willingness of other countries to prosecute under international law I understand are outstanding questions but I do beleive “a defense” was established by the Republican congress muddying the way to impeachment under charges of “war crimes” arising of violations of the GC has been established domestically. Obviously giving legal cover for acts of torture has been on the agenda of this adiministration for some time.

            This is why, as bmaz notes and EW implies, the obstruction angle seems to have more traction albeit in the courts for those who have no sovereign or executive immunity and in Congress with respect to W. Still if it is found that Condi or Cheney obstructed, which has become immanently more provable with the emergence of facts concerning witnesses and meetings Congress could act here as well.

            • bmaz says:

              I think your points, and Udall’s, are correct as to criminal actions for war crimes; but the act passed by Congress in no way impairs the ability to impeach. May undermine the will of some to do so, but not the ability.

              • JThomason says:

                I understand that the impeachment question is not a legal question but the implications in legislative and constitutionaltheory I think exceed the narrow interpretation you suggest.

                My point is that you and EW have been talking about obstruction charges as being the more fruitful path at this point. I get it. You laid it out with respect to the judicial branch. I merely suggested that this may be the more fruitful framing with regard to impeachment if the smoke of the revelations published by ABC indeed infer fire.

              • Hmmm says:

                I think your points, and Udall’s, are correct as to criminal actions for war crimes; but the act passed by Congress in no way impairs the ability to impeach. May undermine the will of some to do so, but not the ability.

                OK, so here’s a theory: According to the above, the only ones actually at risk within US jurisdictions are impeachable officers. But without direct evidence from one of the Principals against the others, there is no case against anybody. Could ABC’s source be W? Putting all the other Principals on notice that if any of them cooperate with an impeachment effort, he’ll testify against them and they’ll go down too? Recall W is the only Principal not named in the story.

                • bmaz says:

                  I don’t think so; just can’s see it. However, we are not at a lack of informationa and solid grounds to impeach for the war crimes, there is plenty of that; we are only at a lack for the will to do it.

                    • bmaz says:

                      Well, we shall see. But I doubt that will change Pelosi’s mind; to be honest, I think they are to concerned about political posturing for the upcoming election to pull the trigger. Sad state of affairs that they are willing to disregard the only real component of their oath to office, but it is what it is it seems.

                    • Hmmm says:

                      Actually, I’m having a hard time swallowing the sourcing story for that document. It was declassified in ‘04 and has been sitting around, on the web, publicly, for years? C’est impossible. Bait?

                      (Can’t help observing Kos was down yesterday during the critical period of the SF torch relay.)

              • JThomason says:

                Just rooting around on the web it looks like Boumediene v. Bush which will decide the constitutionality of the revocation of federal habeas corpus jurisdiction under the MCA where there have been violations of the GC was argued Dec. 5, 2007. It appears a decision has not issued yet. I suppose the catch 22 is that the MCA gives the executive the power to interpret the scope of the GC.

    • TheRealityBasedDave says:

      “Remember his television appearance after the Abu Ghraib photos were released assuring the Arab world that the court martials would reveal that the actions depicted were those of “a few bad apples”.

      Shrub was actually telling the truth. He just doesn’t mention that the “few bad apples” were all part of the white House.

  8. Neil says:

    OT – NO COMMENT

    After 1,322 posts at the No Comment page of the Harper’s website, I am hanging up my blogging hat.

    Scott Horton

    I guess when he says No Comment, he means no comment.

  9. SaltinWound says:

    This seems suspicious to me:

    “A year later, amidst the outcry over unrelated abuses of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib…”

    Why slip in the word unrelated? It’s related through Rumsfeld, the President, all sorts of ways. Even in an article going after this Administration, the Press can’t help protecting them, in all sorts of little ways.

    • emptywheel says:

      One distinct possibility (which I like because it supports my theory, so I’m biased) is that it pinpoints the timing to May 2004, when we know the Administration was also in talks about the torture tapes.

  10. Quzi says:

    So the idea with this leak is to 1) try to convince the WH to shut down the investigation, and 2) to signal that they will go after DOJ’s complicity in the torture if it comes to a trial.

    I couldn’t agree more — but I am thinking more one than two. I hope two is correct. I would love for them to find Gonzo’s fingerprints all over the destruction of the tapes, just as they are all over the destruction of the DOJ.

    Durham is not so independent from DOJ as Fitz was, so it may be a very weak investigation/case with him. I don’t trust anything with the DOJ anymore.

    Speaking of the destruction of justice, is anyone following the Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz Jr. story. Another Siegleman case. It’s very interesting.

    • emptywheel says:

      I think the non-independence of Durham is precisely the issue.

      BushCo DOES have the power to squelch the investigation. As we’ve seen repeatedly, Cheney has sent his own personal lawyer to do just that, on occasion.

  11. Neil says:

    Then there are the people who did the briefing: “CIA directors Tenet and later Porter Goss along with agency lawyers.” Now we’re getting someplace.

    Great!!

      • Rayne says:

        I see Bush as the wayward spouse who’s strayed, the unknown entity (Cheney?) as the wild-eyed crazy Glenn Close fling, and Condi as the pet bunny in the pot.

        I just don’t see Tenet, Goss, etc. being motivated enough to through Dubya’s little girlfriend in boiling water like that. That seems like a pretty big move for these two craven doormats.

        Maybe we’re not thinking of the same movie.

        • emptywheel says:

          The point is not throwing Condi herself in the pot (though Tenet clearly has reasons he would enjoy that). It’s threatening Bush and, secondarily, those he loves best.

          I just don’t see Condi as the exclusive focus here that you do–particularly not with Cheney named at the meeting where they approved combined methods.

          • Rayne says:

            But Cheney could give a rat’s ass about being disclosed as one of the principals. “So?” would be his response to any question of his attendance at high-level principals’ meetings. And while his fingerprints were all over the Plame outing, he generally had the same sentiment about the outing itself. “So?” As principal, he’s entitled to deliberate about anything necessary to save the country for his corporate peeps.

            Ashcroft has been getting dogged here recently about his rather nice gig, too, which also sets the mind to running as to whether the hush money simply wasn’t enough and he’s having second thoughts.

            I guess I’d think less about Condi if it weren’t for the fact she’s been relatively untarnished enough by all the evil of this administration, to the point where somebody actually ran up a Veep balloon for her. Nice little bunny, everybody wants the bunny, forgetting the little bunny has fangs and bites…and then sploosh, somebody boils the bunny and changes the subject.

            Maybe the challenge is multiple sources. I think one of them cooked the bunny; you think that at least one of the sources could give a hoot about the bunny and is focused on Bush. One of these sources knows exactly what Ashcroft said, not unlike that day in the hospital.

            • emptywheel says:

              Nobody ran up a Veep flag for her. Until we have reason to believe differently (including some indication that every Republican out there knows that Republicans will not name a black probably gay woman to be their Veep), we ought to assume that she ran the Veep flag up herself, as she has before.

    • dotsright says:

      Yup. Just goes to show that no one gets out of this administration with clean hands. It’s almost like a criminal organization where they make sure that everyone is incriminated so that no one can rat the others out.

  12. wavpeac says:

    Really then, it is only a matter of time. It could take ten years (I doubt it) but over time the truth will come out. One day, when I do not know, we will be referring to this administration as war criminals. Who knows how big this is or how many it will touch in the end, but the truth is coming as it always does eventually. I am impatient, and wish we would have a collective awareness, restore our reputation and prosecute these crimes. They may never be prosecuted, but I do believe that history will tell the truth on this one.

    • emptywheel says:

      I’m not sure it WILL come out. THe folks at CIA who briefed these guys would not, normally, have an incentive to expose the fact that they were involved in torture. It’s only the fact that they’re at risk of prosecution–even while Cheney et al are protecting themselves–that leads them to expose the details of these briefings, I suspect.

      Thus, if the threat of prosecution were to disappear tomorrow, I suspect it would be rather difficult to force these people to come clean.

      • Neil says:

        Mutual assured destruction.

        No one fires a shot, they just let eat other know what ammo they’re prepared to use.

      • wavpeac says:

        Maybe I am wrong here, but it seems like there are enough puzzle peices at this point to have a pretty exciting expose the likes of “Who Really Killed JFK”, given what we know NOW. (as a result of the prosecution) It might not happen in this protective climate, but even the mob has it’s story tellers, eventually. I thank god that we know what we do. I hope we learn more. But…there is enough here to make any american queasy, if it were put together and presented in a skillful way. (as you do)

  13. PJEvans says:

    TPM has a piece on DiFi trying to pin down Mukasey on the 4th this morning: whether all those memos saying it doesn’t apply in ‘domestic military operations’ have been withdrawn. He was trying to duck-dodge-bob-weave out of it and she actually kept pushing.

  14. yellowdog jim says:

    thanks for your previous reply, ew.

    abc

    As the national security adviser, Rice chaired the meetings, which took place in the White House Situation Room and were typically attended by most of the principals or their deputies.

    … snip …

    Sources said CIA officials that summer returned to the Principals Committee for approval to continue using certain “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

    Then-National Security Advisor Rice, sources said, was decisive. Despite growing policy concerns — shared by Powell — that the program was harming the image of the United States abroad, sources say she did not back down, telling the CIA: “This is your baby. Go do it.”

    my bolds

    Can’t Phillipe Sands’ friends convict Condi of war crimes with this evidence?

    ah, condi for starters.

  15. QuakerGirl says:

    I’m not surprised by any of the Principals. After all Colin Powell covered up My Lai and I’ve never heard one expression of regret from him. During his tenure in Vietnam, while American troops didn’t openly practice torture, they did turn over women North Vietnamese nurses to the South Korean troops for interrogation, which meant hideous torture. None that I know of survived.

    They all need to be held accountable along with John Yoo.

  16. rincewind says:

    ISTM that a lot of the info could only have come from CIA sources, and it does have the same ring of “We’re not going down alone” that we’ve seen from other leaks.

    But — a couple of quotes sound precisely like Addington at his no-filter/?Asbergers? worst. The two that really jumped out at me:

    “It kept coming up. CIA wanted us to sign off on each one every time,” said one high-ranking official who asked not to be identified. “They’d say, ‘We’ve got so and so. This is the plan.’”

    and

    “These discussions weren’t adding value,” a source said. “Once you make a policy decision to go beyond what you used to do and conclude it’s legal, (you should) just tell them to implement it.”

    The article doesn’t connect these two quotes, but they hang together as a narrative from a single source, whose (sole) focus was “Hey, we told ‘em to go ahead, and they kept wasting our time with the same old same old”. This has to be a non-CIA source — talking about “us” and “them” — and complaining that they “weren’t adding value” is classic Addington. He’s peeved about the lack of efficiency in implementing the decisions, but no concern for the illegality or immorality of the decisions.

    • emptywheel says:

      You know, I agree completely that this has to be a non-CIA source.

      Though given the other comments–particularly Ashcroft’s “history will just us” one, don’t you think it likely that it’s Ashcroft of someone tied to him?

      It’s not, verbally, Addington’s Aspergers. It has none of the conjunctive, run-on sentences. Too focused to be him.

      • drational says:

        COMEY: The next day was Wednesday, March the 10th, the night of the hospital incident. And I was headed home at about 8 o’clock that evening, my security detail was driving me. And I remember exactly where I was — on Constitution Avenue — and got a call from Attorney General Ashcroft’s chief of staff telling me that he had gotten a call…

        SCHUMER: What’s his name?

        COMEY: David Ayers.

          • drational says:

            I don’t know anything about the man, except that he saved Ashcroft’s ass on March 10th from signing an Illegal Wiretap continuation, and he is CEO of the Ashcroft Group consulting firm.
            He has a historical and (presently) fiscal reason to keep Ashcroft out of the Hoosgow, so it is just an idea.

            A lot of the leakiness has tended to present Ashcroft’s cleanliness.

    • brendanx says:

      The thing is, the quotes put the CIA in a better light, as they’re seen as persistently having reservations and seeking legal cover.

    • brendanx says:

      There’s also a logical connection between these two consecutive sentences:

      “These discussions weren’t adding value,” a source said. “Once you make a policy decision to go beyond what you used to do and conclude it’s legal, (you should) just tell them to implement it.”

      Then-Attorney General Ashcroft was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.

      Ashcroft’s reservations about “grim details” are of a pair with the first source’s reservations. I assume “source” is not the same as Ashcroft, but the outlook is the same, fear of getting caught and exasperation over being asked to leave a trail.

  17. QuakerGirl says:

    Condi just announced she will not run for veep but is returning to Stanford. Does this mean the Hoover Institute? She should be exposed like Yoo for her part in torture. Pressure is coming down on the Boalt School regarding Yoo. The same should apply to Rice at Stanford. May she not be welcomed there.

    • RevBev says:

      Oh, and reject the Bush library at SMU. Every alum and every Methodist and lots more should protest any presence of this criminal on the campus, let alone whatever the proposed think tank may represent. The whole plan, even the contemplation, is abhorrent.

  18. alabama says:

    No one–not even Bush the elder–has fallen on his or her sword for Bush the Younger, and no one ever will, not even Condoleeza Rice (because she, like everyone else, knows that he’d never fall on his sword for her). Cheney, of course, will stonewall–he was put on the earth to do this–and will never find himself having to deny, let alone to admit, that 43 was in that room, watching those tapes and getting high on the spectacle of torture (because he’s a voyeur as well as a sadist).

    But as for everyone else? At some point, for whatever reason, some of these folks will testify to the goings-on. Convincingly. Bush won’t be standing trial when this happens–our justice system will protect him from that–but he’ll be alive when the story is told. And how will he react? Pretty much as he did when that reporter once asked him if he could recall having made a mistake–i.e. with a mute shrug of the shoulders. He did nothing wrong, he was doing his job, he had a country to protect, he does the work of the Lord.

    And so the testimony of the witnesses will fall flat, as it always does where the wrong-doings of this man are concerned. I also think it will stay “flat”–that no one will really feel the outrage that they know they ought to feel–before another fifty or sixty years have gone by (during the latter years of grandchildren, let’s say). At which point, maybe, this story, relegated so long to the closet as a skeleton, will be brought out and dusted off to the astonishment of all and sundry. And what will they make of it all? Might a Jeremiah be moved by an ongoing scandal of the day to denounce the whole, long-gone affair in furious, prophetic prose? If so, it might make for an interesting moment, but won’t change the pattern at play.

  19. Peterr says:

    Another tidbit for the puzzle . . .

    Over at Legalities, Jan Crawford Greenburg says this is a story “that I’ve spent the last five months reporting.” I can’t tell if she means the general story of who approved what or more specifically “someone came to me with info five months ago, and we’ve spent the time since nailing down other pieces.”

    Either way, five months ago puts us in mid-November. Time to go check that timeline . . .

  20. JThomason says:

    Saturn is retrograde and retracing the Virgo station it held when Abu Gonzo resigned late last Summer. Could the J. Dean strategy of working up the ladder be yet unfolding? Will Condi be the next to fall?

  21. johnSwifty says:

    I hope to god the current buzz about Condoleezza Rice being a potential VP candidate for McBush actually comes to pass. I would love to see her chickens come home to roost with regard to this atrocity and have it played out in the MSM, but I’m realistic enough to recognize that the chances of the MSM behaving as anything other than lapdogs is nil. Still, I long to see these monsters held accountable in some venue, somewhere. If only there were a Court of FDL!

  22. Mary says:

    You don’t suppose John Durham’s investigation is honing in on the CIA, do you?

    Well, given what the article says, if his investigation isn’t honing in on Ashcroft, he has no honing mechanism.

    Apparently Ashcroft’s position was, *approve depravity in the hypothetical, but golly, I’m not sure I really want to know who is having what depraved things done to them based on my OK* From the article:

    Then-Attorney General Ashcroft was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.

    According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: “Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.”

    Why, indeed, are “we talking about this?”

    Think about all the cases being brought, so many courts, so many proceedings, all raising torture and torture authorizations, and yet never even ONE preservation notice going out? Gosh, looks like the answer to that one is in the bag, doesn’t it? The Attorney General of the United States didn’t want a record kept of what torture he authorized. He didn’t even want to talk out loud about it – just ok the abstract and go.

    I actually think Larry Thompson was better clued in than you might think. He was clued in enough to refuse to sign the FISC applications because he had enough info to know that he was violating the FISC firewall orders when he did, and he was clued in enough to be a direct sign off participant in disappearing Maher Arar to Syrian torture, via Jordan (Jordan being apparently a hot spot destination for others DOJ was approving for long distance torture – – – which may explain a bit more about the suicide bombing in Jordan that so surprised everyone who didn’t know Jordan was torturing “suspects” for the US).

    In any event, Ashcroft knowing about torture, especially Z’s torture, especially with it raised directly in Padilla’s case from the get go, and no on preserving evidence – including the evidence relating to those conferences – if Durham doesn’t have Ashcroft lined up, then the joke is already over.

  23. perris says:

    The CIA wanted to use more aggressive — and physical — methods to get information.

    this part is incorrect from everything I have read, they were getting the most information before they were “ordered” to torture by cheney and they didn’t want to use those techniques

  24. earlofhuntingdon says:

    The path out of Wonderland just got harder to find. Scott Horton announced that today will his last daily blog at Harper’s No Comment. He’s devoting himself to longer pieces.

    Like going cold turkey off good Berkeley coffee, I think we’ll all miss the daily infusion of his legal, literary and multi-national-lingual insights and his restrained passion for civil liberties. Rare perspectives (in print, at least) among top-flight New York corporate lawyers.

    Can’t wait to see what longer articles and books he comes up with to expose this lawless regime and to help light the path ahead.

      • johnSwifty says:

        I wouldn’t mind if he showed up at Vanity Fair so they could kick Hitchens to the curb. Good Lord! According to the Churchillian maxim, I’m supposed to become more conservative with age, but I’ve gotten to the point where I literally scream at any publication carrying Hitchen’s work. It’s starting to scare the children. Mr. Horton would be a great help!

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Scott’s announcement didn’t mention whether he would be remain as a guest blogger at Harpers or where he intended to publish longer articles or books. Legal turmoil will engulf the next administration, regardless of the path it chooses. Scott’s voice would help make sense of the din. Hope he keeps publishing regularly.

  25. WilliamOckham says:

    I’m a little surprised that the “principals without principles” didn’t catch on to what the CIA was doing. That whole business about getting them to sign off on each poke, prod, and splash was done for exactly one reason. Somebody in the CIA was holding on to every one of those memos. We need to find that person and charge them with war crimes. Then, that person deals on a lesser charge in return for the smoking gun implicating the higher-ups. I’m actually shocked that Cheney didn’t see that coming.

    • perris says:

      I’m actually shocked that Cheney didn’t see that coming.

      cheney is a moron who acts like he has brains

      • yellowdog jim says:

        In response to WilliamOckham @ 75

        I’m actually shocked that Cheney didn’t see that coming.

        cheney is a moron who acts like he has brains

        cheney:
        shoots friend in face, but doesn’t follow to hospital to check on him;
        married and (don’t even think about!) you-know-whats Lynne Cheney:

        so maybe a little torture might not seem like such a big deal?

        or

        maybe it is a REAL big deal.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Cheney is a ruthless master bureaucrat with above-average intelligence and an endless supply of cynicism, retribution and disdain. He has lots of energy and axes to grind; and he’s still running the show.

        • Quebecois says:

          Cheney has learned since the Nixon debacle, that, having justice (Yoo) to cover your ass is the most inportant thing to make sure he gets all he wants. And gets away with it for all eternity. He’ll never be brought to justice in the States.

        • perris says:

          cheney is not the mastermind here, he is a moron, the”masterminds” are those in the pnac, cheney does their bidding

          he is indeed a moron who acts like he knows more then everyone else

          • Twain says:

            Have to disagree. I think Cheney is the mind behind all of this as well as PNAC. He is cruel and devious but what I haven’t figured out is why. He is just filled with hate.

            • Hugh says:

              He is cruel and devious but what I haven’t figured out is why. He is just filled with hate.

              He’s a paranoid with sociopathic traits. He always sees people out to get him and so tries to strike them first. He feels entitled to his own wealth, power, and comfort. He holds longstanding grudges against even imagined slights but is completely insensitive to the pain and suffering of others. Take a look at his life and tell me if I’m wrong.

              • Twain says:

                It would be informative to know what his early years were like. In many ways, he seems like a person who was abused in some way and wants to get back at the whole world. He has a really sick mind

          • brendanx says:

            You’re ignoring the methods and mechanisms of how this “bidding” is done, which this site has done more than any other to expose: lawyers, memoranda, e-mails, bureaucratic inveigling, infiltration and impediments, lots of other banality.

          • earlofhuntingdon says:

            I think we’ll continue to disagree on that. I agree that Cheney is part of a wider network that involves powerful players, whose interests he adopts and supports. He is also the one with the moxie and Svengali-like will to be the last to whisper in Shrub’s ear; the one who placed his acolytes in top positions throughout federal agencies and uses them to promote his own private purposes, subverting normal chains of command and policy-making processes; and the go to guy within the White House complement for decisions. Those may fall into the legal lap of George W. Bush, as the formally elected chief executive, but Cheney makes them.

            Others may consider him a tool in their hands, as he considers Bush in his, but they’re holding a buzz saw, not half a pair of pliers.

            • perris says:

              Others may consider him a tool in their hands, as he considers Bush in his, but they’re holding a buzz saw, not half a pair of pliers.

              on this part we finally agree, he is a puppet but a dangerous puppet.

              still, do not give either him or the pnac any credit at all, their predictions are always incorrect and every move they make is proven false

  26. merkwurdiglieber says:

    Losing Scott Horton as a daily read is another blow like losing Billmon
    some time back. I hope to see some longer work to compensate… back at
    the lake the daily grind continues, much to our relief here.

    • Minnesotachuck says:

      YOu saved me a post. (I guess not really; just a few words.) Horton, like Billmon, has been an extraordinarily insightful and articulate presence on the ‘net.

    • Rayne says:

      Interestingly, the Condi for Veep chatter escalated when Dan Senor said “Rice has been actively, actually in recent weeks, campaigning for this,” on ABC’s This Week.

      Hmm. Prior to that there was little chatter, and denials run 2-to-1 after that. I guess I just don’t think Senor would be the kind of guy you’d trust to broach the subject if you were campaigning, more like the person you’d ask to try something out.

      • JoFish says:

        Well, if Dan Senor, Coalition Provisional Authority mouthpiece extraordinaire say it, it’s gotta be true. Probably got it from his wifey… Noron.

      • brendanx says:

        Isn’t this Condi For Veep charade also just the Republicans marketing themselves as a tolerant, big tent party?

      • klynn says:

        Add to that chatter, this end quote from the ABC story:

        Then-National Security Advisor Rice, sources said, was decisive. Despite growing policy concerns — shared by Powell — that the program was harming the image of the United States abroad, sources say she did not back down, telling the CIA: “This is your baby. Go do it.”

        The WAY it was delivered at the end of the story left me hearing in my head, “Dun, dun, da, duh!” Of course in a heavy, lower, sharp key… Akin to a “who dunit” instead of investigative journalism.

        Who thinks of this stuff? Who was taking copious notes to GET THAT quote? Honestly, I have a difficult time with Condi using THOSE words. Would she infer something like that? Sure. THOSE words? Man, who writes these lines?

        Who is Condi most likely to back in the EO? Who is she not about to stand loyal to in the EO?

        • brendanx says:

          I don’t have a difficult time believing that “baby” quote. This is the woman who called the bombing of Lebanon the “birth pangs of a new Middle East”.

          • klynn says:

            True. Point taken.

            It was the delivery of the line on the ABC news that made it more “scripted” then a genuine quote.

        • Rayne says:

          Yeah, not just the “it’s your baby” part, but the “shared by Powell” part. Why interject this at that point?

          To whom exactly did she say “it’s your baby”, and in front of which principals/deputies?

        • maryo2 says:

          Condi’s saying “This is your baby. Go for it.” reminds me of the Tenet “slam dunk” quote. It’s like the leak deliberately pushes the responsibility away from Bush/Cheney. That quote makes me think that Cheney is behind this leak (which is contrary to this whole thread that is based on this leak being aimed AT Cheney).

          • klynn says:

            It also had a similar hit on my thinking as the Novak outing… A “WTH?” response came to my mind last night as I watched the news.

            • maryo2 says:

              This leak also turned the focus away from the question of who really wrote the (not yet proven to exist, but it must) OLC formal opinion. Yoo wrote the memo, but he was never in a position to make it a formal OLC opinion.

              Now we hear that the Principals Committee held meetings on this topic, which makes me ask “Why did they think what they were doing was legal? Upon whose authority did torture become legal?”

              It seems like this leak was meant to make everyone hastily jump past that yet unanswered question.

              • bmaz says:

                As far as i can tell, Yoo’s opinion is the opinion. Whether it is properly submitted or technically legal or not, there are not enough facts yet known to determine with clarity. I have seen no reason to believe that there is some superseding memo though.

                • maryo2 says:

                  I have seen no evidence either other than the claims that methods were “legal,” so I am expecting the old bait and switch after the public is mentally exhausted.

              • RevBev says:

                I think this is very interesting; clients are generally entitled to rely on a legal opinion. But attorneys do not have a free pass to issue whole cloth illegal advice.

                • perris says:

                  I think this is very interesting; clients are generally entitled to rely on a legal opinion. But attorneys do not have a free pass to issue whole cloth illegal advice.

                  I canot believe someone could issue an illegal opinion and therby forgive anyone who claimed they performed illegal activity because of that opinion

                  if yoo said point blank;

                  “it is indeed ok to murder someone”, that does not give anyone a basis to murder, no matter what standing yoo might have had

                  I want the defense, “I did it under orders” to be rebuked outright

                  • maryo2 says:

                    IANAL but from what I have read here, the sticking point is going to be the “in good faith” clause. It has to be proven that the Principals following the advice given in the torture memo knew it was sham advice and therefore they could not possibly have been acting in good faith when they relied upon it.

                    The CIA interrogators may claim they acted in good faith, but the White House has some splainin’ to do about the legal justification for their orders.

                    • perris says:

                      but there is no “good faith” prospect when talking about torture, it is depraved, you are jumping because there is the opening to jump.

                      if I am a judge or jury, these people are guilty with or without the memo

                    • perris says:

                      or in other words;

                      “why would telling someone they can murder be differant then telling someone they can torure?”

                      there really can’t be good faith regardless of the memo

                    • MrWhy says:

                      definition of murder is much clearer than “enhanced interrogation techniques” being torture. Just ask Mukasey.

                    • maryo2 says:

                      Yes, it is depraved and I totally agree 100% with what you are saying. I was trying to think like they think, or trying to figure out what they were thinking. To The Hague with the lot of them! Hang them, dismember their bodies, burn the parts in separate pyres and sprinkle the ashes at parts unknown so that their children have no place to mourn for their parents. Leave the world to know that this will not be tolerated.

                      And they’re lucky I don’t suggest cleansing of their family members.

                    • Lamorial says:

                      The Yoo memo must be taken in the context that it was part of Bush’s grand scheme to bring democracy to Iraq. So what if Iraqis got tortured maimed or killed in the process.

                • MarkH says:

                  clients are generally entitled to rely on a legal opinion. But attorneys do not have a free pass to issue whole cloth illegal advice.

                  In a criminal case where a client says he did something based on legal counsel, isn’t it likely a judge would just say, “you received bad advice” and “Having been found guilty …”?

              • MarkH says:

                Now we hear that the Principals Committee held meetings on this topic, which makes me ask “Why did they think what they were doing was legal? Upon whose authority did torture become legal?”

                Yoo have to ask?

                Seriously, someone had to know what they were going to do and wanted cover. That someone asked DOJ for cover. Apparently nobody there wanted to do it, so they chose their patsy…Yoo. Let Yoo do it, he’ll do anything. And, he did.

                Who asked Yoo? Who knew they were going to need that cover? Who planned the torturing? And, did they actually commission a study of what kind(s) of torture techniques were most likely to be effective? Who did that study and produced that report?

          • perris says:

            Condi’s saying “This is your baby. Go for it.” reminds me of the Tenet “slam dunk” quote

            this quote has always been taken out of context, tenet never said their were wmd’s, bush asked tenet if the public would buy such shoddy evidence to which tenet said THAT was a slam dunk

            • maryo2 says:

              Yep. The (heavily edited and based on known forgeries) case to present to the public was a slam dunk, not the outcome of the illegal invasion.

              • maryo2 says:

                For fun reading to see what conservative blogs are saying today about this news. When I find one that mentions it, I’ll let you know.

                Found this at some conservative blog – the most recent thread dated April 7 has this headline “The Buzz: McCain and Rice will be the Republican ticket.” Funny. Seems like conservatives have served themselves a big cup o’STFU this morning.

  27. rincewind says:

    Mary @71 and brendanx @73 make good points for Ashcroft or somebody in Ashcroft’s corner as the source of those quotes, but they still strike me as a peevish whine about time-wasting inefficiency rather than concern about substance or about being forced to repeatedly hear about/respond to all those nasty details.

    • brendanx says:

      But the three statements progressively reveal the really worry: bureacratic inefficiency (i.e., paper trail), “grim details”, judgment, i.e., prosecution.

      Why would someone be merely “peevish” to a reporter, and not self-interested, unless it’s Addington, with his ingenuous candor — but emptywheel has said that’s unlikely @57.

      See also @17 for author’s echoes of Ashcroft’s concerns: “grim details”.

  28. HelplessDancer says:

    I would love to Condi as the VP candidate. Just think of the 30 sec spots of her “no could have anticipated(insert event here) statements.

  29. JoFish says:

    I guess our national policy comes down to “the dog ate our detainees” and we still haven’t convicted any of these bastards.

    Why, oh why did Pelosi take “take impeachment off the table”? There will never be any accountability for any of this.

  30. klynn says:

    EW,

    When’s your NEXT TRIP? Just wondering what is to HIT the fan next and when?

    BTW, great deductive thinking. When I heard the report on ABC last night, my first statement was, “EW is going ask the question, ‘Who sourced this?’” And Charlie’s (forgive me, Charles) Gibson’s follow-up statements and questions were incredibly “staged”. I felt like the “source” wrote them…

    I wrote this a few times last week, here I go again. We need something solid on Cheney ASAP…

    brendanx

    Ashcroft’s reservations about “grim details” are of a pair with the first source’s reservations. I assume “source” is not the same as Ashcroft, but the outlook is the same, fear of getting caught and exasperation over being asked to leave a trail.
    reply

    Nicely stated.

    Mary,

    In any event, Ashcroft knowing about torture, especially Z’s torture, especially with it raised directly in Padilla’s case from the get go, and no on preserving evidence – including the evidence relating to those conferences – if Durham doesn’t have Ashcroft lined up, then the joke is already over.

    Great lens on this.

    EOH:

    I miss PEET’S!!!

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Best coffee west of the Rockies; too bad his old apprentice tried to put him out of business. The Schadenfreude over Starbuck’s hiccup in growth is as satisfying as a cup of Kenyan AA

  31. Mary says:

    And on the fwiw front, I’m going to go back to the things Coleman and Suskind and others have mentioned about Z’s torture. It didn’t start because of a ticking time bomb.

    NSA and intel thought Z was very operationally important in Al-Qaeda bc his name kept coming up in intercepts. So, as soon as he was captured, instead of staying quiet about the capture while intel went through his laptops and other info taken with him, and instead of waiting to see if he recovered from his injuries enough to be coherent, Bush went out and made speeches about how we had captured the “number 3″ guy in al-Qaeda. Having the disaster of 9/11 as his personal responsiblity, but seeing that somehow people were willing to overlook it and support him anyway, he wanted to make sure they kept seeing him as now being something other than a failure, so he made sure he “bragged on himself” to look good.

    Then the bad news. First he discovers that Z’s questioning might be on hold a bit bc his pain medications make it difficult to get coherent info (Bush’s response was to growl over who authorized pain meds) Then the very immediate word that Z isn’t actually the number 3 guy, isn’t operationally significant, is more in the nature of “Joe, the Greeter” and is also completely and certifiably nuts (agents are reviewing his documents which include a journal obsessing over bizarre minutaie and written in three personas).

    So Bush is being given the reasons to not expect much more from the questioning than the info that was taken in the laptops, but his response to Tenet is an order for Tenet to make sure they don’t let Bush look bad – he said we had the number 3 guy, so Tenet damn well better get something out of him.

    The ticking time bomb? Bush’s temper, ignited by his vanity, fueled by his resounding failures and need to still feel worthy and important and loved and respected as “right” and “strong” and “good.”

    The biggest problem with the linked story is when they refer to, “amidst the outcry over unrelated abuses of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib”

    There was noting unrelated about it. Memos were all over the place by then, saying that it was ok to torture and assualt and abuse and humiliate; Ashcroft – per the story itself – was repeatedly giving the certification of legality to abuse of detainees; Gonzales had urged Bush originally to adopt the “unlawful enemy combatant” rationale because they could claim that, under the War Crimes Act, war crimes would magically become non-crimes if the victims were “unlawful;” just as the US public, the military was being told and was telling its soldiers that Iraq was tied to 9/11 and while there may have been pieces of paper making distinctions about al-Qaeda and Iraq’s regular army, in general the rules continued (until Goldsmith – devil here’s your due) to be iterated and reiterated that the Geneva Conventions just didn’t apply (and even Goldsmith has his name on a bizarre draft memo allowing violations of the Geneva Conventions against people clearly covered by those GCs, as long as the violations aren’t permanent); Taguba’s reports and interviews and the memos going to Haynes and a slew of other things all make it clear that Military Intelligence (MI) was getting the same word as the CIA – let loose your inner demons on whoever you have chained up and just don’t worry too much about whether they are really al-Qaeda or not, make them talk or make them feel they will have to become an informer for us.

    Powell and his State Dept GC at the time (pre-Bellinger) said it in the memos to Bush – – the military, if removed from the restrictions of its training and the GCs, if 18 yos are turned loose being told there are no rules, no limits on what they can do, and “these” are “the people” who caused 9/11 – – the military would implode with abuses. They put it in the memo, it’s not “unrelated” at all. In order to have a paper trail to allow Bush and his “Principals” more cover against War Crimes charges, they were willing to do that to the miliary in general; and in order to assuage Bush’s vanity and cover for their own incompetence, Haynes and the “Principals” were ready to send MI places where every single JAG said they shouldn’t go.

    It’s not unrelated – it’s what happens when you become a state sponsor of torture on whim.

  32. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Given the enormity of what these senior political advisers to the President were approving, from the White House; that they were breaking with all historical and legal US precedent; that they were approving and delegating to others the power to carry out torture; and that hundreds of hours of tapes were made to show them what they had authorized and whether it worked; who thinks they didn’t review a series of tapes just to make kinda sure what they were doing?

    And who thinks codpiece didn’t sneak a peak and say, “Hsoorrah! Bring it on!” This is a human being, after all, who as governor of Texas cackled over the impending judicial murder of a woman inmate begging for mercy because she had found the Lord.

    The article, if true, makes clear these people had actual knowledge of their policies, actual knowledge of who they authorized to carry it out, and what that meant to the men and women and children on whom it was carried out. It is inconceivable that this was not pushed by Cheney and authorized by Bush at his command. No doubt, backed up with suitably arranged “legal” opinions.

    Jack Balkin says we’ll never see a war crimes trial here, that no country needing US support and commerce could carry out one either. (Unless someone like Hugo Chavez puts in place the necessary statutory framework and convinces countries these folks are more likely to visit to treat their over-confident visitor like a former Panamian head of state and rendition his or her backside to Venezuela.) Jack may be right, for good reasons he spells out in his blog.

    If so, it becomes essential for us as a society and for the legitimacy of our government that the next administration create a joint executive-Congressional-public commission to find out more about the crimes we won’t be prosecuting this administration’s leaders for.

    We praise Germany for having the introspection to look at its own warlike past, to document it and to take positive legal and political steps to prevent its recurrence. We deride Japan for failing to do so. I don’t think we can look ourselves in the eye or expect anyone else to, if we fail to do that, if we allow the Yoo’s and Kmiec’s and Russerts and WSJ’s to persuade us to let be that festering lump under the carpet. And given the rise of the Surveillance State, who wants to have less trust in their government?

    • yellowdog jim says:

      Jack Balkin says we’ll never see a war crimes trial here, that no country needing US support and commerce could carry out one either. (Unless someone like Hugo Chavez puts in place the necessary statutory framework and convinces countries these folks are more likely to visit to treat their over-confident visitor like a former Panamian head of state and rendition his or her backside to Venezuela.) Jack may be right, for good reasons he spells out in his blog.

      War Crimes Prosecutions in the U.S.? Dream On

      read this looking for refutations of the “Tap On The Shoulder” scenario the Philiipe Sands describes in The Green Light.

      i find the arguments against domestic trials conclusive.
      and presumption is that US allies wouldn’t risk US ire.

      i wonder if a democratic executive branch might (passively) enable western Europeans to have our war criminals.

      they have no immunity from international law.
      no war criminal has.

      right?

  33. maryo2 says:

    29, 33, 34 and 45 –
    (3) “I think they would have demonstrated conclusively the worthlessness of the information received from the torture”

    (4) They show that the techniques explicitly followed the Principal Committee’s step-by-step instructions including combining techniques, number of hours, etc.. There is no wiggle room for the “a few bad apples” outright lie by Bush.

    • brendanx says:

      It wasn’t “out of the mainstream” at the time. Some time in 2002 there 60 Minutes gave Alan Dershowitz a feature to advocate “torture warrants” (you want torture to be done by the book). And then there’s always “24″.

      • selise says:

        i should have been more specific – it was out of the mainstream of acceptable thought among npr listeners (there were a lot of shocked and pissed off donors), now i don’t think it would be noticed.

    • brendanx says:

      Not to mention those loveable cuddlies Jebediah Bartlett (”There’s a lot of hate out there on the internet!”, per Tom Friedman) and Toby Ziegler (They’ll like us when we win!) shooting down the planes of “Qumari” terrorist suspects.

      Sorry for this tangential foray into my memories of tv — from when I still watched it — but the ground was being prepared, everywhere.

  34. sadlyyes says:

    McSame so Lame
    —————
    McCain: I’ll Cut Deficits Like Reagan (Who Tripled The Deficit)
    The Huffington Post | April 10, 2008 08:52 AM

  35. Hugh says:

    Well, lets see. Who comes off really badly in this story? Condoleezza Rice definitely. Not only is she portrayed as taking the lead it is her pithy comment “Go do it” that ends the piece. Ashcroft too comes off poorly. He is less concerned with torture than he is with CYA. Cheney and Powell are both there. Cheney’s penchant for torture is well known but whoever the sources are seem not to have had much access to him. Powell’s presence is mitigated somewhat by his doubts but this is a pretty slim reed. He was in the same room with those going through the minutiae of how to torture Zubaydah and his doubts seem less to do with the practice of torture than with its negative PR. Tenet comes off as the guy making sure that the higher ups are informed and have signed off on anything he thinks is dubious. The 800 lb chimp not in the room is Bush. This is likely an indication that the sources are not from within the White House and did not have that high level of access (consistent with the glancing mention of Cheney).

    So yes, I would agree that this suggests that the sources are not White House and are mainly CIA and that they did not think much of Rice or Ashcroft and were ambivalent about Powell. I have to add I find it hard to believe that a gossip like Armitage did not contribute something to the story even if it was just to confirm details.

  36. maryo2 says:

    OT – A question of timing:
    Texas Judges are heavily appointed by GW.
    A Texas judge unleashed the FBI on the plural marriages sect the same week that Petraeus and Crocker appear before Congressional Committees.
    FOX News loves kiddie porn.

    Did the DOJ from Washington DC dictate to the Texas judge that a raid should occur at this time? TV news showed a woman saying that in a Texas Judge had to be shown evidence of imminent danger to get a warrant for action. Sirens went off in my mind — what is the judge’s name, when were they appointed, when did the supposed cell phone call from a 16-year-old occur (how many days past between phone call and warrant?).

    That BushCo sends the DOJ commands and uses the FBI to their advantage is proven.

    • RevBev says:

      Texas trial court/district court judges are not appointed. They are elected. Distict or county courts handles these child welfare cases.

    • maryo2 says:

      OT still – Just as I suspected or expected these days –

      http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/stor…..038;page=1
      “The Texas sheriff who raided a secretive polygamist compound on suspicions that young girls were being sexually abused as child brides said today that he has had an informant inside the cult for the last four years….That immediately raised questions, however, about why the sheriff waited until a desperate 16-year-old girl — apparently pregnant with a second baby and battered so badly she had sufferered broken ribs — called a family violence hot line pleading for a rescue.”

      My questions are – does this phone call even exist? When did it occur? What is the judge’s name? Was he or she contacted by Washington DOJ in regard to this warrant?

      This sex stuff is exactly what the dumb dumbs who will vote Republican in November like to hear about – it is porn for them served right on schedule.

        • PJEvans says:

          I have the impression that there was both an inside informant for the sheriff and a phone call to a shelter, not necessarily connected. A bunch of the kids have chickenpox (and are isolated until they stop being contagious), a number of the teenage girls are pregnant, and they have some evidence backing up the story that under-age girls were being married. Apparently kids were being moved from house to house while the search was going on: the searchers would see kids in one place, and be pointed to some other location by the residents.

        • maryo2 says:

          I found some information:
          “The girl said in a [Saturday] March 29 call to an unnamed agency

          The affidavit says the girl made a series of telephone calls, speaking quietly on a borrowed cell phone and stating she feared being overheard.

          On [Sunday] March 30, the girl called an unnamed local family shelter and again described her situation.

          Officials went onto the ranch two days later.”
          http://www.sltrib.com/ci_8853168?source=rss

          The problem with that article is that “two days” after March 30 was Tuesday, April 1, but the raid began “late on Thursday April 4.”
          http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04…..tml?ref=us

          Maybe Saturday ’til Thursday is a normal response time when a girl calls to say she is beaten and raped. I don’t know, I just don’t trust Bush’s DOJ.

          • emptywheel says:

            There’s an article I read mere hours ago, focusing on the discovery of beds in the temple, that quoted from the woman that received the call. Apparently it took them some time to refer the call to the police, because it took them a while to determine that the young woman had had a child when she was 15.

            I can’t find taht precise article (it may be variant of the AP one on the beds) but it should be readily accessible.

            • RevBev says:

              And I think the earlier note is correct that there had also been an informant working with the Sheriff; then the girl’s phone call gave enough to put it all together.

  37. bmaz says:

    The CIA has, as I recall, indicated all along that everything they did was approved and micro-managed by senior authorities, which I always took to mean White House/cabinet, or their deputies, level. And Kiriakou stated that everything was carefully directed from Langley in conjunction with administration officials. So, this is, again, not new.

    Also, remember this story from three weeks ago:

    The CIA announced Monday that it will now pay the full cost of legal liability insurance for about two-thirds of the agency workforce.

    The insurance costs about $300 a year. Until now the CIA has paid just half of the premium annually. Only about 15 percent of eligible employees actually apply for reimbursement.

    One shift is already looming: A change in administrations could make it more likely lawsuits will be filed against CIA interrogators for a controversial program approved by the Bush White House _ the use of harsh interrogation techniques and the secret movement of prisoners, known as extraordinary rendition.

    Looks like the CIA has been gearing up for real problems.

    • Peterr says:

      I’m trying to imagine being the insurance underwriter for this policy, trying to put a pricetag on it.

      Given the growing public knowledge of the apparent lack of quality legal guidance being issued by the White House/DOJ for the CIA, I’d guess that the premiums have been rising *quite* steeply over the last year or so.

      It’s kind of like the Catholic Church and its insurance rates for clerical misconduct over the last five to ten years. Once a picture of administrative misconduct starts to appear, it makes it damned difficult even to get insurance — and when you can get it, the price will be steep.

  38. Ann in AZ says:

    So does this mean this entire committee met and decided the type and timing and all the other aspects of the torture to subject Murat Kurnaz to in his extraordinary rendition? He’s the nineteen year old German citizen who was the subject of a “60 Minutes” story about extraordinary rendition and torture.

    • Ann in AZ says:

      Well, my question of the day has more to do with the uselessness, the utter gratuitous use of torture on victims who, while we’re told by our government are high value prisoners, unlawful combatants and such, actually are innocent bystanders who know nothing! That is inexplicable, irrational, and unconscionable. And there’s nothing to be gained by it, except maybe stature as a sadist or barbarian. We’ve become throwbacks! Our chosen leaders have led us here, and we’ve so desired leadership that we let them.

      • pdaly says:

        Others have mentioned the main benefit of torture to a government that tortures is not actionable intelligence but rather prisoner “confessions” (mostly false confessions) to be proudly and loudly displayed as an answer to its would be critics. ‘See?! We ARE protecting the homeland. Allow us do our work in peace.[sic]’

  39. Kirk James Murphy, M.D. says:

    EW, thanks for another masterful post about these thugs – and their self-destructive arrogance.

    I used to wonder what part of “conspiracy to commit war crimes” do they not understand? Now I expect to live the answer revealed in European courts.

    Your post and Phillipe Sands’ interview at DN give me hope that after January 20, the only way the “principals” and their little Eichmanns can safely travel outside the US would be on American military planes, headed for US bases.

    the meetings I’ve had with a European judge and a European prosecutor, who basically said the fact that the US has created a domestic immunity significantly increases the prospects of international investigational prosecution, if any of these people set foot out of the country. And as the prosecutor said to me, that was a very stupid thing to do, to create an immunity….

    The judge and the prosecutor have asked me for all of my materials. They were not aware of the details. They were not aware of the immunity that had been granted. And I think what it does do, at the very least, is expose some of these individuals, including the lawyers who form part of what I’ve called the torture team, to the possibility of investigation, if they set foot—well, they’re going to be investigated irrespective of whether or not they set foot outside of the United States—the possibility of the tap on the shoulder, what happened to Senator Pinochet when he was in London, I think becomes a real risk in relation to some of the individuals at the top.

    And that was only last Friday – what a great week!

  40. Hugh says:

    Re ABC, except for the KBR rape cases and this, I don’t link to it much. The quality of their news writing is pretty bad. No one there seems to treat the basic journalistic questions: Who, what, when, where? seriously. In this story there was as well a real resistance to write it straight. So at the same time they are dropping the bombshell about top people in the Administration talking about how to torture Zubaydah they are throwing in caveats like well they were all concerned post-9/11 and they got good intelligence from him anyway. I mean this seems a little like those news stories where a newsperson will ask the neighbor about the axe murderer who lived next door. Well, he was a very nice man, except for the chopping people to bits part.

    The story raises important issues and provides details suspected but not public before. Still it could have and should have given us a clearer, moe detailed narrative and without the cognitive dissonance.

  41. QuakerGirl says:

    Does anyone recall Cheney’s youth was heading in the wrong direction? He was arrested a couple of times. Showed signs of a criminal mind. So he took up politics so he could do all the same corrupt things only inside the law. Anyone have more info here. For many years I remember calling him a two-time loser.

  42. Diane says:

    The Congress has done a pretty good job of ignoring the drip drip drip of whistleblower information – probably an indication of what will be done during the next administration – nothing! They want to put this all behind them as soon as possible – lift rug, keep sweeping.

  43. QuakerGirl says:

    Just when you think it can’t get any worse, the Bush Administration finds a new way to shock the conscience. Yesterday, ABC News reported that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice chaired explicit White House discussions about which torture techniques should be used on prisoners.
    This from True Majority. Perhaps this is why she gave up her veep pursuit after making noises of interest.

    They “were so detailed” that “some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed — down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.”1 This is the first time that we have evidence that senior officials, “not only discussed specific plans and specific interrogation methods, but approved them”. Given these new revelations, Condoleezza Rice can not continue as Secretary of State.

    Sign our Petition demanding that Rice resign: http://www.truemajority.org/condi

  44. earlofhuntingdon says:

    I think Jack makes a persuasive case that most countries, which need to trade with or receive considerable support from the US, are unlikely to host a war crimes trial. It would take extraordinary ingenuity and widespread support.

    The public and private actors who fought against the UK extraditing Pinochet from the UK to Spain to face a war crimes trial – including the US – have considerable clout. The clout they would bring to bear to avoid a war crimes trial for Bush, the VP, or their top aides or lawyers – any one of which would open the entire can of worms involving them all – would dwarf it by comparison.

    Still, they should all consider abandoning foreign travel except on US Government or Blackwater aircraft to friendly hideaways, like those hosted by Arabian princes. Even failed attempts at starting a war crimes trial, such as the one in France involving Rumsfeld, can harm what they hold dear.

  45. Mary says:

    45 – “the worthlessness of the information received from the torture” That’s their best reason to destroy. Like the “admissions” of Higazy, proven false, the “admissions” of Arar, proven false, the “admissions” of al-Libi, proven false, etc. As long as everyone goes around talking about the heroism of torturers because they saved the world, and there’s nothing really to deconstruct that from – they have a fig leaf that a lot of evidence of false confessions would take away.

    I have to wonder if some of the “leaking” is coming from someone on either Durham’s crew or the IG crew (Horton has mentioned that upcoming IG report several times – I’m incredibly sad that Horton is going to stop blogging)

    Those crews KNOW that they are hogtied – they saw how Fitzgerald in housing approach was a disaster. They probably have interviewed Ashcroft and he gave them some truth because he was worried about obstruction claims otherwise. Bush and Addington will be working on pardon language now if they haven’t been already. In the midst of all this, Rice stands up and makes the push to be VP to the old guy. There has to have been some pov that the nation would be better served by her spending a little more time with the pianoforte.

    What you do have to factor in to the “Principals,” though, is the Congressional interplay with the Principals. What did Pelosi and later Harman, Reid, Rockefeller, et al – what did THEY know and THEY have discussed with them? Maybe they don’t want those “briefers” talking any more than the Principals do?

    61 – that reference to knowing Bush won’t fall on any swords – I think that came out in the growly snarl from CHeney basically WARNING Bush that Cheney wouldn’t let Bush throw Libby to the wolves just to cover for Rove.

    72 – I think Cloonan and Coleman indicated that some of the CIA guys did want to be turned loose to do more and do worse. For that matter, the whistleblower at GITMO (Fallon? I’m so bad with names) talked about the FBI making plans to ship one of the detainees there to Jordan and that his crew there had to step hard on insteps to keep that from happening. I don’t think you find any “clean” branches. For that matter, I have to say that I basically would understand people have a brief period of going nuts. Again, that’s where the lawyers have so much culpability. There really might have been some excuses for very bad behaviour in the very short term – and there might have been a real national will to overlook some excesses while we were in a pretty wild state of grief and fear.

    But what the lawyers did was to come in and say, “stay there – that’s the new ‘legal’ baseline – stay depraved, we like it like that, you’re like our little pit bull in the pen and if someone gets bloodied, it won’t be us up here, on high, looking down at you beasts in the pit” It showed such contempt, not just for the torture recipients, but for the torturers. The lawyers didn’t care what they did to those people – they certainly didn’t protect them, from Bush, Cheney or from themselves. They used them as little playthings. It really is horrible. And they all pick up nice paychecks and sleep well at nights.

  46. Peterr says:

    According to the All-Seeing Froomkin, Cheney does indeed have physical office space in the West Wing of the White House (or did as of Aug 2006 when the map was last updated). Here’s his map of the West Wing.

    This is, of course, in addition to the larger space for the official OVP elsewhere.

  47. QuakerGirl says:

    I hope that as this whole cabal unravels Congress does’t step in to save the pieces. Another oathless hearing coming up?

      • JTMinIA says:

        In short, Levin pointed out that Bush and Crocker both said that no more reconstruction money was needed, but Gates requested $600M for the same. They can’t keep their stories straight for two days.

  48. LS says:

    Where was Yoo during this time? Was he in the meetings too? Because the heat has been on him, and he has a good motive and the knowledge to rat on the whole lot of them.

    • bobschacht says:

      Where was Yoo during this time? Was he in the meetings too? Because the heat has been on him, and he has a good motive and the knowledge to rat on the whole lot of them.

      This is a good point. Yoo was asked (at certain points) to provide the rationalization for what they were already doing. If so, however, he missed the point about the lawyer’s responsibility for giving lawful advice to his client?

      Bob in HI

  49. Mary says:

    JoFish “…the dog ate our detainees…” That isn’t really far from the mark. We have reported deaths in detention during approved interrogation procedures, both MI and intel and just regular military, like the Dilawar beatings, and then we have the disapperances that no one follows up on – including KSMs disappeared wife and children.

    The concept of the “Principals” and their meetings takes me back to the reference in the Rohrsarch and Awe piece, about some shadowy group that gave the OK to bury Z alive.

    159 – He’s been tough, hasn’t he?

    If nothing else, it’s going to get harder and harder for German courts to ditch el-Masri’s claims. Now you have his case rejected all the way through the US Sup Ct, Merkel in a press conference saying that Rice confessed the US did kidnap and abuse el-Masri, and now the US press picking up that Rice told the CIA to just “go do it”

    The meetings of the “Principals” add a bit more flesh to the discussions of Rice’s role in what did or did not happen to el-Masri. IIRC, they said she basically ran the show on finally ordering him to be released and again IIRC, the article mentioned that there had been some discussion of just doing away with him so his story would never come out. Did the AG of the US sit through that kind of discussion?

    • 4jkb4ia says:

      Somewhat related to this appalling story which will now get even less attention. This story was brought to the NYT by Human Rights First. The courts set up to try former Afghan detainees of ours in Afghanistan do not question any sort of evidence which is presented against the defendants. The standard is worse than that which would be applied at Guantanamo. “The prosecutions are based in part on a security law promulgated in 1987, during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan”.

    • bmaz says:

      I too wonder about the IG/Helgerson angle. Not necessarily from the content of the article so much, just kind of wonder in general. Bet he didn’t like the kneecapping given him not so long ago. Also wonder what Mary McCarthy has been up to.

  50. ClosetOptimist says:

    “The high-level discussions about these “enhanced interrogation techniques” were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed — down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.”

    Does this remind anyone else of the way the germans were so efficient during WWII? I wonder if any of these guys carries a cyanide pill at all times?

  51. Mary says:

    137 – if anyone is making any kind of noises about his role in giving classified info to Abramoff, there might be some reasons he’d cooperate, but no one seems interested in that aspect of the Ashcroft DOJ. Interesting thought.

    I also think that on the Comey front, if he was interviewed by Durham’s crew, he’d at least tell the truth or invoke grounds for not being able to speak – I don’t think he’d lie directly in a statement (unlike in a press conference) so if he has some knowledge, it would have come out. It seems, too, that the Ashcroft attributed quote about history not judging kindly is pretty close to what has been attributed to Comey as his input on a torture memo, IIRC.

    148 – No, I didn’t know that about Cheney.

    • bmaz says:

      As I recall the Cheney infractions were DWIs so calling him a two time loser seems a little, um, extreme on the part of whoever above said that. I hold all kinds of grudges against Cheney, but interpolating two DWIs in the 60s into some kind of world criminal persona is fairly ludicrous.

      Back to the source of this, Kiriakou was the source for a lot of the original ABC report back in December or whenever, I wonder if he is not, at least partially, a source on this report? He is overly chatty and this is the type of positioning that the spooks might want.

    • selise says:

      almost as bad as mullen (or was it gates?)) talking about the stabilizing influence of a long term usa military presence in iraq.

  52. JTMinIA says:

    It’s hilarious when Lieberman (time charged to D) follows Warner (time charged to R).

    Also fun: Gates just admitted (based on a note passed to him by an aide) that Levin was right: while claiming that no more reconstruction $$$ was needed, they simultaneously asked for $600M.

  53. JTMinIA says:

    Lieberman: “the only people that want us to leave are the Iranians.”

    (Said with a Cheneyesque smirk from ear to ear.)

    • bobschacht says:

      “Lieberman: “the only people that want us to leave are the Iranians.””

      Well, I think he’s wrong about that, too.

      The Iranians love it that our troops are all tied up in Iraq. If they weren’t, they’d be free to send into Iran, which you know is what Cheney wants to do.

      Bob in HI

  54. radiofreewill says:

    I’m going to guess the source is Kirakou, who is ‘fronting’ for Rodriguez.

    The piece puts all the players – except you know who – in the picture. Now, if something gets said about the deliberations and actions of the Torture Advisory Committee, I mean the Principals, at the White House, presumably all of them would have some relevant information.

    This is ground-laying for an Impeachment Inquiry that appears to be one step away from ‘ignition.’

    Once Bush is identified as a Participant in the Principals’ Torture-Prescribing Sessions – which none of us here doubt – Congress will have no choice but to act…Decisively.

    • bobschacht says:

      This is ground-laying for an Impeachment Inquiry that appears to be one step away from ‘ignition.’

      Once Bush is identified as a Participant in the Principals’ Torture-Prescribing Sessions – which none of us here doubt – Congress will have no choice but to act…Decisively.

      I really hope you are right! Dare I hope?

      Bob in HI

  55. Mary says:

    180 – Afghanistan is just forgotten or ignored on all fronts, as is the issue of all the thousands of people we are holding in Afghanistan and Iraq, separate and apart from GITMO, and their black hole. Yesterday there was news that the AP photographer who has been held so long was ordered released by an Iraqi panel of judges, but so far the US wasn’t agreeing to the release.

    181 – bmaz, have you seen this story?

    The release of a report on the FBI’s role in the interrogations of prisoners in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and Iraq has been delayed for months because the Pentagon is reviewing how much of it should remain classified, according to the Justice Department’s watchdog.

    Like maybe that HRW story about the Jordanian torture renditions and the (Fallon ?) story about the FBI wanting to send some GITMO detainees to Jordan to be tortured? Coleman’s stories. Cloonan’s stories. Threats against family members. The story about al-Libi being wrapped in duct tape like a mummy and put in a box for his delivery?

    I’m guessing all kinds of things will be considered too “classified” to release.

  56. pdaly says:

    I don’t know where in the torture timeline this fits, but does anyone recall news reports that Al Qaeda terrorist manuals instructed its members, if they were ever captured and then released, to lie about their time in captivity?

    I remember the message all over the airwaves was ‘Al Qaeda members are such evil people that they will try to falsely accuse their detainers of torture’, etc.

    At the time most of us were still learning how to pronounce Al Qaeda–so any information was helpful. Now, however, it seems just as likely this was a gratuitous lesson to Americans and a psy-ops campaign to immunize the White House and CIA from any scandals once the WOT began. Maybe more proof that torture was the plan?

  57. Mary says:

    196 – if we do, it’ll make everyone who bought the book want a refund for everything he left out, eh?

    From the TPM link referenced above about the Feinstein/Mukasey exchange – she pushes him to say the memo was withdrawn, he won’t but says basically that yeah, the fourth amendment does apply during wartime, but then goes on to say that the Yoo memo only offered that 4th amendment grounds as an alternative to OTHER grounds. Which we don’t know about. So if the same action (domestic searches and seizures by the miliary) has a grounds other than the suspension of the 4th – umm, don’t we want to know what that is Sen Feinstein?

    Finally, Mukasey responded, “The Fourth Amendment applies across the board whether we’re in wartime or peacetime. It applies across the board.”

    When Feinstein pronounced herself satisfied, Mukasey said, “with due respect, I don’t think there’s anything really new about that answer.” He went on to imply that Yoo’s discussion of the applicability of the Fourth Amendment had not been a crucial aspect of that memo. “The discussion of which that was a part… means the inaptness… the suggested inapplicability of the Fourth Amendment as an alternative basis for finding that searches discussed there would be reasonable.”

    So the follow up, on what kind of military searches we were talking about?

  58. LS says:

    “A new senior official in the Justice Department, Jack Goldsmith, withdrew the legal memo — the Golden Shield — that authorized the program.

    But the CIA had captured a new al Qaeda suspect in Asia. Sources said CIA officials that summer returned to the Principals Committee for approval to continue using certain “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

    Then-National Security Advisor Rice, sources said, was decisive. Despite growing policy concerns — shared by Powell — that the program was harming the image of the United States abroad, sources say she did not back down, telling the CIA: “This is your baby. Go do it.” “

    This is the part of the article that keeps jumping out at me. First of all, the “memo” did not “authorize” the program. Secondly, it suggests that even though the legal opinion memo had been withdrawn, Condi basically orders them to go ahead anyway. Now, that just seems weird….Condi is so close to Bush, and I’m sure she would not have ordered any agency to proceed with something for which legal basis had been withdrawn by DOJ….unless W and Cheney and their attorneys told her to tell them to do it, because W ordered it and as unitary executive he could do whatever he “decided” to do. I just don’t see Condi making a move like that without W telling her to. It just isn’t the way she operates. Somebody is trying to throw her under the bus. Who doesn’t like Condi in the WH….widely rumored…Dick and his crew. Plus, the leaking of this stinks of Cheney and is reminiscent of the Plame leak…JM2cents

  59. Mary says:

    202 – in general, when someone claims “reliance on advice of counsel” in a court proceeding, courts force them to make the advice public and privilege cannot attach. IOW, you can’t have it both ways (at least in the corporate setting where I have seen it) Here, Congress and the courts have been letting them have it both ways – no production of OLC or telecom counsel memos, but claiming reliance on those for their acts.

    For that matter, no timeline even indicates an OLC opinion addressed to the telecoms – I’m not sure if the 45 day authorizations the AG signed off on were addressed to them or not. But it’s hard to claim reliance abilities on a nonpublic opinion issued to someone other than you.

    • bmaz says:

      Yeah, and in the extremely unlikely event such a memo was shared, I think the telcos would not have relied on it. Probably prefer just to rely on the formal avowals of the Administration; their position would be weaker if they saw and incorporated the bogus memos.

  60. maryo2 says:

    ew at 230 – If she said that she is regularly beaten and raped and lives in fear, then why does it matter how old she is?

    • emptywheel says:

      Because you can’t go in and get ALL Of the children out without some reason to believe there is something that specifically endangers children.

      Also, once they figured out she was pregnant when she was 15, that made it a clear violation of Texas law (which puts marriage at 16).

    • bmaz says:

      Veracity and ability to corroborate are absolutely critical. How do we know this girl even exists? Everything matters.

  61. maryo2 says:

    I hope that the investigation and raid was on the up-and-up. I feel sad for the children – actually for all of the people for living like that. Feelings aside – this is Bush’s DOJ – in Texas even.

  62. maryo2 says:

    For closure – I have found what I was looking for – the dates of the warrants and who signed two of them. The judge is a Republican but she does appear to have acted in a timely fashion. The girl called on Sunday and the first warrant was issued on Thursday.

    What agency she called on Saturday has not been released; I assume it is not the same shelter she called on Sunday.

    Also, I have found that the 4-year informant may not have been at the Texas ranch. He may have been at either of two other ranches. Thus he may not have been a witness to the abuses in Texas.
    ***************

    “It was Walther who authorized agents to search the ranch. She signed the first search warrant April 3, then authorized a second, more expansive search warrant April 6. She also authorized a civil action, ordering officers to remove all children from the church’s ranch. …
    In Texas, a third search warrant from a federal judge has since been signed, authorizing federal agents to search the ranch.”
    http://deseretnews.com/article…..82,00.html

    • emptywheel says:

      See if you can find an early version of that AP story–I think the NYT version changed as I was looking at it to take out the name of the woman from the shelter, who was interviewed.

  63. bmaz says:

    I would have to look at the warrant affidavits, but I am not real crazy about the probable cause generated by a hearsay phone in on uncorroborated veracity.

  64. maryo2 says:

    OK, will do. Honored to do it.

    I just found an article that differs from the earlier one by saying that the Saturday phone call was indeed to the same shelter.

    “The compound was raided Thursday after the 16-year-old girl called a local family violence shelter March 29 and 30, using someone else’s cell phone and speaking in hushed tones to avoid being overheard, McFadden’s affidavit said.”
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..st_retreat

  65. maryo2 says:

    This article says she called “the shelter several times on [Saturday] March 29.” It mentions only one call on Sunday.
    http://www.dentonrc.com/shared…..d3545.html
    *************

    I saw a female interviewd on tv and I read her name in an article yesterday. And today I cannot find her name or job title. I don’t know if she is the person to whom you refer. I can see how family violence shelter workers might need to keep their names and addresses out of newspapers though. An x husband just might try to kill someone if he thinks that person ruined his marriage.

Comments are closed.