Carl Levin to Cheney: You’ve Got Nothing

Carl Levin better watch out for Liz "BabyDick" Cheney and her cries of "libel!" Because he just called her Daddy a liar, using words like "false statements" and "colossal misrepresentation."

Now, Levin is actually the second person who has seen those documents who says they don’t say what PapaDick says they do.  A couple of weeks ago, Russ Feingold accused PapaDick of lying using somewhat more gentle language.

Nothing I have seen – including the two documents to which former Vice President Cheney has repeatedly referred – indicates that the torture techniques authorized by the last administration were necessary, or that they were the best way to get information out of detainees. The former vice president is misleading the American people when he says otherwise.

But I’m specifically interested in Levin’s statements for the very specific way he rebuts PapaDick’s claims (note, I’ve got nothing on my senior Senator in my appreciation for weeds). 

But those classified documents say nothing about numbers of lives saved, nor do the documents connect acquisition of valuable intelligence to the use of abusive techniques.

I’m interested in those specific details for the way they flesh out the details from the May 30, 2005 Bradbury memo which appears to have details from two documents related to those Cheney is seeking. As I suggested in April, it appears Cheney may be seeking one of the documents, and a version of another, that Bradbury used to rebut the CIA IG report’s conclusion that the torture was not all that useful. 

Here’s what the three documents cited by Bradbury for his "efficacy" argument say. I’ve left off all reference to the IG Report; my discussion of Bradbury’s use of that is in this post and this post. And I’ve noted which claims–really, the most critical ones–he offers no citation for. I bring it back to Levin below.

CIA Directorate of Intelligence, Khalid Shaykh Muhammed: Preeminent Source on Al-Qa’ida (July 13, 2004) ["Preeminent Source"]

After the September 11 attacks, KSM assumed "the role of operations chief for al-Qa’ida around the world." [citation omitted] KSM also planned additional attacks within the United States both before and after September 11.

[snip]

And, indeed, we understand that since the use of enhanced techniques, "KSM and Abu Zubaydah have been pivotal sources because of their ability and willingness to provide their analysis and speculation about the capabilities, methodologies, and mindsets of terrorists."

Memorandum for Steven G. Bradbury, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, from [redacted], DCI Counterterrorist Center, Re: Effectiveness of the CIA Counterintelligence Interrogation Techniques (March 2, 2005) ["Effectiveness Memo"]

Your office has informed us that the CIA believes that "the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al-Qa’ida has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001." [citation omitted] [snip]

Both KSM and Zubayadh had "expressed their belief that the general US population was ‘weak,’ lacked resilience, and would be unable to ‘do what was necessary’ to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their goals." Id. at 1. Indeed, before the CIA used enhanced techniques in interrogations of KSM, KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, "Soon, you will know."

[snip]

As Zubaydah himself explained with respect to enhanced techniques, "brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when they believe they have ‘reached the limit of their ability to withhold it’ in the face of psychological and physical hardships."

[snip]

You have informed us that the interrogation of KSM–once enhanced techniques were employed–led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the "Second Wave," "to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into" a building in Los Angeles. Effectiveness Memo at 3. You have informed us that information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better know as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemaah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the "Second Wave."

[snip]

You have informed us that Zubaydah also "provided significant information on two operatives, [including] Jose Padilla[,] who planned to build a ‘dirty bomb’ in the Washington DC area."

Fax from [redacted], DCI Counterterrorist Center, Briefing Notes on the Value of Detainee Reporting (April 15, 2005) ["Briefing Notes"] 

More specifically, we understand that KSM admitted that he had tasked Majid Khan with delivering a large sum of money to an al Qaeda associate. [citation omitted] Khan subsequently identified the associate (Zubair), who was then captured. Zubair, in turn, provided information that led to the arrest of Hambali. See id. The information acquired from these captures allowed CIA interrogators to pose more specific questions to KSM, which led the CIA to Hambali’s brother, al-Hadi. Using information from multiple sources, al-Hadi was captured, and he subsequently identified the Guraba cell.

[snip]

Interrogations of Zubaydah–again, once enhanced interrogations were employed–furnished detailed information regarding al Qaeda’s "organizational structure, key operatives, and modus operandi" and identified KSM as the mastermind of the September 11 attacks. 

[snip]

More generally, the CIA has informed us that, since March 2002, the intelligence derived from CIA detainees has resulted in more than 6,000 intelligence reports and, in 2004, accounted for approximately half of CTC’s reporting on al Qaeda. See Briefing Notes at 1; see also IG Report at 86 (noting that from September 11, 2001, thought April 2003, the CIA "produced over 3,000 intelligence reports from" a few high value detainees).

No citation given

In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including KSM and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques.

[snip]

 You have informed us that the CIA believes that enhanced interrogation techniques remain essential to obtaining vital intelligence necessary to detect and disrupt such emerging threats.

[snip]

You have informed us that the substantial majority of [the 3000 and 6000 reports] has come from detainees subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques. In addition, the CIA advises us that the program has been virtually indispensable to the task of deriving actionable intelligence from other forms of collection [several lines redacted]

So note a couple of things. First, as I noted, Bradbury does not provide a citation for his most expansive claims–that the CIA would be unable to obtain this information otherwise, that torture remains essential to collecting this information, and that the large numbers of the reports came "from detainees subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques" (though not, notably, as a result of those techniques). Instead, we learn (from the July 13, 2004 document) that KSM and AZ provided information generally on al Qaeda. And we learn (from the two 2005 documents) that KSM revealed details about the Library Tower plot.

The Library Tower, of course, is one of the last remaining legs they’re trying to stand on. But as has been repeatedly documented, there is no way PapaDick can credibly claim that torturing KSM prevented the Library Tower plot.

What clinches the falsity of [the Library Tower claims], however (and that of the memo he cites, and that of an unnamed Central Intelligence Agency spokesman who today seconded Thessen’s argument), is chronology. In a White House press briefing, Bush’s counterterrorism chief, Frances Fragos Townsend, told reporters that the cell leader was arrested in February 2002, and "at that point, the other members of the cell" (later arrested) "believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward" [italics mine]. A subsequent fact sheet released by the Bush White House states, "In 2002, we broke up [italics mine] a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast." These two statements make clear that however far the plot to attack the Library Tower ever got—an unnamed senior FBI official would later tell the Los Angeles Times that Bush’s characterization of it as a "disrupted plot" was "ludicrous"—that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn’t captured until March 2003.

And other than these details (and fluff from Abu Zubaydah), all Bradbury cites to build the case–which is critical to this memo–that this stuff saved lives is a bunch of enigmatic statements from AZ and KSM (they have both since said torture led to false confessions). 

One more note of some interest. It appears that Bradbury had at least the first two of the three May 2005 memos drafted by April 8, 2002 (see Document 1). While Bradbury didn’t end up using the efficacy arguments for the two May 10 memos, it suggests that one of the hold ups on the May 30 memo may have been making a case on efficacy, not least to rebut the IG Report’s conclusion that torture wasn’t all that useful. Which, in turn, suggests that those Briefing Notes, written after those drafts and the most detailed argument that torture disrupted the Liberty Tower plot, might be an attempt to persuade Bradbury. I’m guessing the document Cheney wants combines those notes with the Effectiveness memo.

In any case, Levin claims that "those documents say nothing about numbers of lives saved, nor do the documents connect acquisition of valuable intelligence to the use of abusive techniques." And that appears to be the case. While, with Briefing Notes, Bradbury has the logic of a step-by-step disruption of the Library Tower plot the Bush Administration had busted a year earlier. But that’s as close as they come to making this argument. 

image_print
23 replies
  1. TheraP says:

    This post is perhaps (inadvertently) connected to the previous post. Though you might not have intended that. It goes back to using anecdotal information, without regard for the universe from which it is plucked, as if one could construe something thereby.

    Thus, I repeat my comment from the previous thread.

    Annals of statistics. Part I.

    There is a reason Dem’s admire intellectual expertise and like to deal in facts, not propaganda. One set of data, independent of the group from which it comes, does not supply the facts.

    If only repubs would study and learn. Instead of spout propaganda!

    Amazing how they seem to use the same maneuvers over and over!

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      I don’t think they’re interested in ‘facts’ as much as emotional security.
      Whatever is required to preserve and build their emotional security, they’ll do. The facts be damned unless they support the emotional security.

    • rkilowatt says:

      ” Amazing how they seem to use the same maneuvers over and over!”

      Cuz’ it works…Even when it doesn’t work, it works…well, until EW, Bmaz and friends arrived, with some crazed idea there’s an out-of-the-box universe. Tsk.

  2. MadDog says:

    …One more note of some interest. It appears that Bradbury had at least the first two of the three May 2005 memos drafted by April 8, 2002 (see Document 1). While Bradbury didn’t end up using the efficacy arguments for the two May 10 memos, it suggests that one of the hold ups on the May 30 memo may have been making a case on efficacy, not least to rebut the IG Report’s conclusion that torture wasn’t all that useful…

    I would also note that one of the “exemptions” claimed for the “draft” of the Bybee Memos is a perfect example of the bogus use of classification to conceal “bad stuff” that would at a minimum embarrass the Government and at maximum, reveal a conspiracy to commit the crime of torture.

    The “exemption” claimed is:

    …The document is withheld in its entirety based on FOIA exemptions (b)(1), (b>(3), and (b)(5). This document contains information that has been classified in accordance with Sections 1.4(c) and (d) of Executive Order 12958, and is protected from disclosure by exemption (b)(1) because it would reveal intelligence sources and methods, as well as foreign activities of the United States government, whose disclosure reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security

    (My Bold)

    I’ve not found a disclosure in any of the May 2005 Bybee Memos that would have legitimately justified rendering the entire document “classified” under the exemption (b)(1) cited.

    Crimes? Yes!
    Embarrassment? Yes!

    Revealing intelligence sources and methods? No, unless criminal methods are included in the exemption.

  3. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    From this post:

    In a White House press briefing, Bush’s counterterrorism chief, Frances Fragos Townsend, told reporters that the cell leader was arrested in February 2002, and “at that point, the other members of the cell” (later arrested) “believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward” [italics mine].

    Okay, so Townsend claims that someone somewhere stopped something.
    The means used to do the ’stopping’ relied on OLC Bradbury memos, correct?
    Some might call those means ‘torture’.
    BabyDick and PapaDick both claim these means were ‘justified’ because they ’saved lives’, while failing to rigorously document this fact.
    Others, including Jesse Ventura and the current Dir of the FBI and Soufan, claim these ‘means’ are counterproductive for America’s objectives, providing specifics about the information provided sans torture.

    But this claim of Cheney’s that the memos will prove that ‘lives were saved’ is even more interesting — and suspect — in view of the fact that it appears there were programs so secret that Cheney didn’t even allow Townsend, the counterterrorism head, to know about them, and Comey was ‘read in’ only after Goldsmith (and Philbin) won a long, drawn out battle against Addington to get Comey read in. Then, Comey was shocked to discover who else was not read in — including the counterterrorism chief:

    im Comey was in the White House that morning, too, arriving early for the president’s regular 8:30 terrorism brief. He had heard nothing since the discouraging meeting the day before.

    Comey found Frances Fragos Townsend, an old friend, waiting just outside the Oval Office, standing by the appointment secretary’s desk. She was Bush’s deputy national security adviser for combating terrorism. Comey had known her since their days as New York mob prosecutors in the 1980s. Since then, Townsend had run the Justice Department’s intelligence office. She lived and breathed surveillance law.

    Comey took a chance. He pulled her back out to the hallway between the Roosevelt Room and the Cabinet Room.

    “If I say a word, would you tell me whether you recognize it?” he asked quietly.

    He did. She didn’t. The program’s classified code name left her blank. Comey tried to talk around the subject.

    “I think this is something I am not a part of,” Townsend said [23]. “I can’t have this conversation.” Like John Gordon and deputy national security adviser Steven J. Hadley and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, she was out of the loop [24].

    Am I correct in understanding that Cheney pretends that some of his ‘evidence’ comes from people who were supposed to be overseeing counterterrorism, but who he kept ignorant of specific ‘counterterrorism’ programs?

    Because if that’s the case, we’re in very deep waters.
    And then he offers as some kind of Bradbury Memo ‘evidence’ the quotations of Townsend, the very person charged with counterterrorism, who is the same person that Cheney doesn’t share information with about a specific ‘antiterrorist’ NSA program?!

    If I am reading this mess correctly, then it’s a safe bet that Cheney’s ‘got something’ that is a whole lot more sinister than ‘nothing’.

    Am I nuts?

  4. behindthefall says:

    It seems to me that the quoted material is full of excellent little sound bites that would play well on Fox. This:

    Interrogations of Zubaydah–again, once enhanced interrogations were employed–furnished detailed information regarding al Qaeda’s “organizational structure, key operatives, and modus operandi” and identified KSM as the mastermind of the September 11 attacks.

    just for instance. I don’t watch Fox if I can help it, so quotes from Bradbury may very well have been all over that channel for years, and I wouldn’t be aware of it.

    However, I have to say that if I heard things like that quote on the tube, I wouldn’t understand why I shouldn’t believe it. (Other than that it’s the Bush Administration (RIP) talking.)

    If the memos which The Two Cheneys want have comparable snippets, they might well provide plenty of Fox fodder and be hard to beat back.

  5. freepatriot says:

    objection yer Honor:

    (note, I’ve got nothing on my senior Senator in my appreciation for weeds)

    wanna bet ???

    I got 10 bucks that says if we put you an Levin in that top secret congressional document room, they carry Levin out in a coma three days before you get bored enough to ask for a cup of coffee

    and to make it interestin, I’ll give ya odds

    4 to 1 ???

    • freepatriot says:

      oooops

      sports book update

      turns out it’s not a submarine, it’s an Anti-Submarine ship

      the odds are goin back to even money

      the ship has a mean left an some fancy rudder work, but I think the village can take him …

      we now return you to emptywheel proving what we know, beyond a reasonable doubt, an to a moral certainty …

  6. radicalrationalist says:

    First, as I noted, Bradbury does not provide a citation for his most expansive claims–that the CIA would be unable to obtain this information otherwise, that torture remains essential to collecting this information, and that the large numbers of the reports came “from detainees subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques” (though not, notably, as a result of those techniques).

    Regardless of its usefulness, Bradbury is overlooking the fact that, whether useful or not, the methods he advocates are illegal. Cheney, Bradbury, Bybee and others would be facing serious charges of conspiracy to commit torture if only the Obama Administration would undertake criminal investigations. Truth Commissions simply aren’t enough. A superpower perfectly capable of trying these people effectively need not resort to so crude an instrument as a truth commission. If you agree, I ask that you join the effort to send the President and Congress a friendly reminder of what their constitutional duties are in the present case.

  7. emptywheel says:

    freep

    You find some way to arrange that weed-off, and I’ll take that bet. But before you do it, make sure you read Levin’s statement for the last SASC hearing. Either he’s got the best staffers ever, or he gets these details in a way no one else does.

    Also, you should know that he’s 75, but he can still keep up with me sprinting to baggage claim in the airport (and like me, he avoids those people mover belts, because there are slackards in the way on them).

    • Petrocelli says:

      No argument here about Senator Levin’s wisdom or energy. I’m sure that he has BO’s ear, WRT rejuvenating the manufacturing base in Michigan and by extension, all of America.

      However, if there is a faceoff between you and 10 Carl Levins, I’ll give the same odds as Freep and double that
      if there’s Beamish in the room !

  8. rincewind says:

    Yup. As soon as I read Levin’s statement, “nor do the documents connect acquisition of valuable intelligence to the use of abusive techniques”, I thought of the very weird strained language used in these memos.

    “since the use of [torture]”

    “before the CIA used [torture]”

    “once enhanced techniques [tortures] were employed”

    “again, once enhanced interrogations [tortures] were employed”

    These phrases say, “We used these enhanced techniques [tortures] AND we got such-and-such information.” They do NOT say, “We got such-and-such information through the use of enhanced techniques [tortures].”

    Even the passage:

    “the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including KSM and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques [tortures]”

    doesn’t say that the “critical information” actually came FROM the “enhanced techniques [tortures]”.

    Okay, maybe these people just can’t write clearly in their native tongue; or maybe torture has become such a habit they extend it to their writing?

  9. rwcole says:

    The CIA, Cheney, Rummy, Bush, et al are getting scared shitless- they leave little brown spots wherever they go. Gonzo is tryin ta plead “I knew nothing”. Little chicken shit bastards deserve to sweat. They know that circumstances could force Obama’s hand and they couold be tried for the war crimes that they certainly committed.

    • Petrocelli says:

      Methinks what’s really scaring them is, the blogs and the growing public awareness is making it take on a life
      of its own.

  10. timr says:

    the Authoritarian Followers in the rethug party-that would be most of them-will continue to push the meme that torture works no matter what evidence to the contrary shows. Their march in lockstep-even using the identical words and phrases-will continue, and the MSM, as ever, will totally fail to note that all are saying the same thing. Authoritarians end game is the World of 1984. We are closer to that than you think.
    Remember the TIA-Total Information Awareness- program that congress shot down a couple of years ago? Well, guess what. It never went away. The name was changed to deflect congress, but the project is going full steam ahead.
    Now, doesn’t that make you feel safer?

  11. karnak12 says:

    Marcy you are incredible the way you have put this all together. And you don’t let up. I get exhausted just trying to keep up with your stuff.

    I also like that Russ calls it what it is:

    “…– indicates that the torture techniques authorized by the last administration…” (emphasis mine)

    And not some newspeak crap “Enhanced Interrogation Technique”. Get real.

  12. KeyserSoze says:

    EW!

    Russ Feingold was using gentle language? WOW!
    I’ve got to go off and ….what’s the expression? ahh … swim in the capitalist cesspool. I wish I had time to read your post right now. I look forward to reading it later

  13. susaninCO says:

    “Papa Dick, Baby Dick”

    I love the Duvalier reference, and, given the last eight years of Papa Dick and Baby Bush rule, our country may be morphing into Haiti faster than we think.

Comments are closed.