The CIA has been making an inventory of its torture tape library. It is supposed to hand over an inventory of the library for the judge to review next Thursday, March 26, including:

• A list of any summaries or transcripts describing the destroyed records’ content.
• A list of any witnesses who may have viewed the videotapes or retained custody before their destruction.

Only, the CIA says the ACLU can’t have any of these lists. 

Here’s the letter DOJ gave Judge Hellerstein explaining the CIA’s reasons why ACLU can’t have the torture library.

The CIA has generated the lists contemplated by Points 2 and 3 of the Order. As instructed by the Court, the CIA will provide the unredacted lists for the Court’s ex parte, in camera review on March 26, 2009 at 2:30 p.m.  There is no meaningful non-exempt information from the list of documents covered by Point 2, which identifies roughly 3,000 documents, including cables, memoranda, notes and emails, that can be produced at this time. All of the information on the list of witnesses covered by Point 3 is either classified or otherwise protected by statute. Accordingly, the CIA is not producing either list to Plaintiffs in redacted form.

In spite of the fact they’ve given us a hugely redacted copy of the CIA OIG report on torture and a torture tape inventory itself, they claim they can’t reveal any of the 3,000 documents discussing the torture tapes. None of them. We’ll see whether Judge Hellerstein agrees with them…

What I’m most fascinated by, though, is the explanation that CIA can’t turn over the list of those who watched or retained the torture tapes because the list "is either classified or otherwise protected by statute." That suggests they’re invoking FOIA exemptions other than classification to withhold the identities of people who watched those tapes.

Take a look at this list of FOIA exemptions, and you’ll see why that may be rather interesting. For example, trade secrets might protect the identities of contractors who had viewed or retained the torture tapes. There’s the physical safety exemption that they earlier cited in regards to their destruction of the tapes–but if they invoked this exemption, it might reveal that they’re worried about the identities of non-CIA employees being released. There are law enforcement exemptions they might invoke if DOJ had reviewed these torture tapes in 2004 in response to a criminal referral by CIA’s Inspector General.

Or the truly interesting possibility–that CIA might claim some identities are exempt from FOIA because they are presidential records more generally exempt from FOIA, which would come into play if someone at the White House had watched the torture tapes. 

The NYRB New Yorker has a piece with long excerpts from the leaked Red Cross report on American torture of high value detainees. (h/t scribe; corrected per scribe) Read it. It’s chilling in its systematicity–the constant involvement of doctors, the efforts to hide any marks of torture, the invention of clinical language to describe torture.

I’ll return to the report, but for the moment just one observation.

Amid a slew of details on the treatment of Abu Zubaydah, the article describes Abu Zubaydah learning that he was the guinea pig for these techniques.

We do not know if the plywood [to minimize the damage from slamming him against the wall] appeared in Zubaydah’s white room thanks to orders from his interrogators, from their bosses at Langley, or perhaps from their superiors in the White House. We don’t know the precise parts played by those responsible for "choreographing" the "alternative set of procedures." We do know from several reports that at a White House meeting in July 2002 top administration lawyers gave the CIA "the green light" to move to the "more aggressive techniques" that were applied to him, separately and in combination, during the following days:

After the beating I was then placed in the small box. They placed a cloth or cover over the box to cut out all light and restrict my air supply. As it was not high enough even to sit upright, I had to crouch down. It was very difficult because of my wounds. The stress on my legs held in this position meant my wounds both in the leg and stomach became very painful. I think this occurred about 3 months after my last operation. It was always cold in the room, but when the cover was placed over the box it made it hot and sweaty inside. The wound on my leg began to open and started to bleed. I don’t know how long I remained in the small box, I think I may have slept or maybe fainted.

I was then dragged from the small box, unable to walk properly and put on what looked like a hospital bed, and strapped down very tightly with belts. A black cloth was then placed over my face and the interrogators used a mineral water bottle to pour water on the cloth so that I could not breathe. After a few minutes the cloth was removed and the bed was rotated into an upright position. The pressure of the straps on my wounds was very painful. I vomited. The bed was then again lowered to horizontal position and the same torture carried out again with the black cloth over my face and water poured on from a bottle. On this occasion my head was in a more backward, downwards position and the water was poured on for a longer time. I struggled against the straps, trying to breathe, but it was hopeless. I thought I was going to die. I lost control of my urine. Since then I still lose control of my urine when under stress.

I was then placed again in the tall box. While I was inside the box loud music was played again and somebody kept banging repeatedly on the box from the outside. I tried to sit down on the floor, but because of the small space the bucket with urine tipped over and spilt over me…. I was then taken out and again a towel was wrapped around my neck and I was smashed into the wall with the plywood covering and repeatedly slapped in the face by the same two interrogators as before.

I was then made to sit on the floor with a black hood over my head until the next session of torture began. The room was always kept very cold.

This went on for approximately one week. During this time the whole procedure was repeated five times. On each occasion, apart from one, I was suffocated once or twice and was put in the vertical position on the bed in between. On one occasion the suffocation was repeated three times. I vomited each time I was put in the vertical position between the suffocation.

During that week I was not given any solid food. I was only given Ensure to drink. My head and beard were shaved everyday.

I collapsed and lost consciousness on several occasions. Eventually the torture was stopped by the intervention of the doctor.

I was told during this period that I was one of the first to receive these interrogation techniques, so no rules applied. It felt like they were experimenting and trying out techniques to be used later on other people.

5.

All evidence from the ICRC report suggests that Abu Zubaydah’s informant was telling him the truth: he was the first, and, as such, a guinea pig. Some techniques are discarded. The coffin-like black boxes, for example, barely large enough to contain a man, one six feet tall and the other scarcely more than three feet, which seem to recall the sensory-deprivation tanks used in early CIA-sponsored experiments, do not reappear. Neither does the "long-time sitting"—the weeks shackled to a chair—that Abu Zubaydah endured in his first few months. [my emphasis]

This article makes clear, then, that about two and a half months after he first woke up in US custody–so probably shortly after mid-June 2002–the US was experimenting on Abu Zubaydah, testing out various forms of torture to see which worked best and left the fewest marks.

Understand what this means: the torturers were conducting their experiments on Abu Zubaydah before John Yoo wrote up an OLC memo authorizing torture (hell–Yoo may have excluded those methods they had decided were ineffective and that my be why they told Abu Zubaydah there were no rules). The torturers were conducting their experiments with the intimate involvement of those back at the White House getting briefed and approving of each technique. And the torturers were being videotaped doing so. 

Those tapes–which in this context sound like a tool in their experimentation more than anything else–are the tapes that CIA destroyed in 2005.

Which I guess makes my question from a few weeks ago all the more pressing. Who watched these torture tapes?

The ACLU has released the inventory of torture tapes the CIA destroyed (h/t MD).

Silly me. I once suggested that the CIA didn’t have a torture tape librarian! This is, as it turns out, a fairly meticulous list of torture tapes.

The inventory makes clear something I had suggested on Monday. While there were over 90 tapes destroyed, they are still just torture tapes from two detainees. There are clear references to Abu Zubaydah in the first set (labeled Detainee #1), so the second set must be al-Nashiri (Detainee #2).

Note the description on the first tape "Do not tape over." Then tapes 89 and 90 are listed as "Tape and rewind." And the two al-Nashiri tapes are also "Tape and rewind" tapes. This suggests that at some point, the CIA stopped keeping each torture video, and started simply reusing them–much the same way the White House started reusing the storage tapes for its email (I’m sure that’s just a coinkydink, really). Al-Nashiri was captured in November 2002, so they presumably switched to tape and rewind by then. (That is, incidentally, around the time they first briefed Congress on the torture they were doing, though they claimed they were not yet doing it.)

But look at the numbering. Tapes 91 and 92–presumably of al-Nashiri–are labeled Tapes 2 and 3. This suggests there’s a Tape 1 that is not in this inventory. Where did Tape 1 from al-Nashiri go?

In any case, it looks like they took about six months of tapes of Abu Zubaydah’s interrogations, saved them for years, and destroyed them in 2005. You think that’s one of the many reasons they have never gotten around to charging Abu Zubaydah?

Arlen "Scottish Haggis" Specter–whose political obituary was written yesterday in the form of a dismal poll result and a renewed threat from Pat Toomey—says we don’t need a truth commission because all the details on Bush era crimes are contained in some file cabinets that we need only waltz up to and empty out.

And in case you were wondering, Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

Presumably because he believes we need only waltz up to those file cabinets and take out the Cheney indictment, the sole contribution Scottish Haggis made in today’s Truth Commission Hearing was to enter this Hans von Spakovsky column into the record. Given that Hans von Spak accused Leahy of pitching a House Un-American Activities Commission, I can only interpret Haggis’ action as a profoundly cowardly attempt to get back in the good graces of the Club for Growth. 

The column itself shows the depths to which the Heritage Foundation has stooped in these, the declining years of the Conservative Movement. Even setting aside the horrible optics of having someone under investigation for abridging minority civil rights for political gain squawking about "political prosecutions," the column is just of pathetically bad quality.

Hans von Spak begins by exactly repeating (the Heritage Foundation, defender of private property, apparently doesn’t even require original work anymore) an error the WSJ made in January, claiming that nothing resulted from Carl Levin’s 18 month investigation into torture in DOD.

Moreover, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) held hearings, under oath, over a 2½- year period looking into many of the same issues. His report, though predictably partisan, found no criminal violations.

Aside from this apparent inability to even count (18? 30? no difference to today’s conservative), Hans von Spak apparently believes that the Committee’s findings–that Bush’s dismissal of Article Three and Rummy’s approval of aggressive technique were the "direct cause of detainee abuse" in Gitmo–doesn’t amount to a criminal violation.

And of course, Hans von Spak, like the WSJ, basically endorsed Levin’s approach while ignoring his call for "an outside commission appointed to take this out of politics, that … would have the clear subpoena authority to get to the parts of this which are not yet clear, and that is the role of the CIA." Hans von Spak and WSJ try to fight the idea of a Truth Commission by pointing to the good work of someone effectively supporting a Truth Commission.

Then, after repeating–in more incendiary fashion–the same straw men that David Rivkin used before the hearing today (again, what happened to the individualist concept of original work??), Hans von Spak, from the same party that criminalized a consensual blow job, the guy under investigation for illegal hiring practices for political reasons, whines some more about the criminalization of politics. 

Of course.

The thing that really gets me about Hans von Spak’s screed, though, are his exaggerations about Democratic complacency in torture. Oh sure, I’d have liked them to use speech and debate to expose the legal wrong-doing. But when Hans von Spak claims that, 

In December 2007, The Washington Post reported that in 2002 four members of Congress were given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and were briefed on interrogation techniques. The bipartisan group, which included Pelosi, was specifically briefed on waterboarding. None of the four complained, and one of them asked if the methods being used were tough enough.

He somehow neglects to mention the very important detail that in this, the only torture briefing Pelosi attended, they were told the torture wasn’t being used yet.

Then, with some dishonest rhetoric, Hans von Spak suggests that no one ever objected to the torture regime.

The CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, including waterboarding and other interrogation techniques in 2002 and 2003. It is curious that lawmakers who were repeatedly briefed and raised no objections should subsequently criticize those very same policies.

Hans von Spak would prefer you didn’t know, I guess, about Jane Harman’s written objection to the torture (and, two years ahead of time, the destruction of the torture tapes). Remarkably, in 2003, Harman was asking the same questions we’re still looking to examine in this Truth Commission:

I would like to know whether the most senior levels of the White House have determined that these practices are consistent with the principles and policies of the United States.  Have enhanced techniques been authorized and approved by the President?

Pelosi, for her part, has committed to real oversight, whatever her shortcomings in the past. Hans von Spak, on the other hand, keeps crying about "criminalizing politics," presumably in an attempt in inoculate his own alleged criminal attempts to politicize justice.

My biggest questions about this, though, are these. Really, is this the best the Heritage Foundation can do? All that corporate money and they can’t even find someone who can do original work that can stand up to the scrutiny of a DFH blogger?  This is what the Conservative Movement has come to?

And speaking of pathetic, why is Politico publishing a column that–in significant part–the WSJ published as its own editorial two months ago? Recycling WSJ’s crap in the voice of a totally discredited, legally-implicated hack is their idea of cutting edge journalism? Two month old inaccurate opinion is "news"?

And then, finally, I know Scottish Haggis can be pathetic. But is he really going to go there, where in a desperate attempt to cling to his Senate seat he becomes the front man for a guy like Hans von Spak?

I know these guys are desperate to stop any real scrutiny of Bush’s actions, but their pathetic state is just making me sad.

In a HuffPo column arguing for a Commission to look into Bush era crimes, John Conyers mentions something people on the Hill rarely talk about: the 2004 CIA Inspector General report on torture.

Nor do I agree that the relevant facts are already known. While disparate investigations by Committees of congress, private organizations, and the press have uncovered many important facts, no single investigation has had access to the full range of information regarding the Bush administration’s interrelated programs on surveillance, detention, interrogation, and rendition. The existence of a substantially developed factual record will simplify the work to come, but cannot replace it. Furthermore, much of this information, such as the Central Intelligence Agency’s 2004 Inspector General report on interrogation, remains highly classified and hidden from the American people. An independent review is needed to determine the maximum information that can be publicly released.

Conyers links to this Jane Mayer interview about the report by way of explaining the significance of the report.

One of the lingering mysteries in Washington has been what happened to the CIA internal probe into homicides involving the program. You note that CIA Inspector General (IG) John Helgerson undertook a study and initially concluded, just as the Red Cross and most legal authorities in the United States and around the world, that the program was illegal and raised serious war crimes issues. Helgerson was summoned repeatedly to meet privately with Vice President Cheney, the man who provided the impetus for the program, and it appears as a result of these meetings the IG’s report was simply shut down. Would those probes have brought into question the Justice Department’s specific approval of torture techniques used by the CIA–approval that involved not just John Yoo, but much more specifically Michael Chertoff and Alice Fisher, the two figures who ran the criminal division?

The fact that John Helgerson—the inspector general at the CIA who is supposed to act as an independent watchdog—was called in by Cheney to discuss his tough report in 2004 is definitely surprising news. Asked for comment, Helgerson through the CIA spokesman denied he felt pressured in any way by Cheney. But others I interviewed have described the IG’s office to me as extremely politicized. They have also suggested it was very unusual that the Vice President interjected himself into the work of the IG. Fred Hitz, who had the same post in previous administrations, told me that no vice president had ever met with him. He thought it highly unusual.

Helgerson’s 2004 report had been described to me as very disturbing, the size of two Manhattan phone books, and full of terrible descriptions of mistreatment. The confirmation that Helgerson was called in to talk with Cheney about it proves that–as early as then–the Vice President’s office was fully aware that there were allegations of serious wrongdoing in The Program.

We know that in addition, the IG investigated several alleged homicides involving CIA detainees, and that Helgerson’s office forwarded several to the Justice Department for further consideration and potential prosecution. The only case so far that has been prosecuted in the criminal courts is that involving David Passaro—a low-level CIA contractor, not a full official in the Agency. Why have there been no charges filed? It’s a question to which one would expect that Congress and the public would like some answers. Sources suggested to me that, as you imply, it is highly uncomfortable for top Bush Justice officials to prosecute these cases because, inevitably, it means shining a light on what those same officials sanctioned. Chertoff’s role in particular seems ripe for investigation. Alice Fisher’s role also seems of interest. Much remains to be uncovered.

There’s more (badly transcribed) from Mayer’s book here, and here’s an earlier post reflecting on ties between the report and the destruction of the torture tapes.

Now, Conyers’ mention of the IG report takes up just one line in a larger argument in favor of an independent Commission (click through to read the whole thing), so it’s not like he is focusing exclusively on this report. But, as I said before, when I’ve raised this report with staffers on the Hill they usually just look at me blankly, without acknowledging that such a report exists (or existed). Heck, Conyers himself barely mentions the report in his almost 500-page report on Bush’s abuse of power (see page 128 for what I believe is the only reference to the CIA IG report).

And yet Conyers links to an account of the report that focuses on the role of Michael Chertoff and Alice Fisher–as DOJ officials, solidly in the jurisdiction of the House Judiciary Committee–as the prime example of secrets that remain hidden behind classification practices. 

That sure seems to support my suspicion that the report is one key to unraveling the Bush Administration authorization of–and subsequent cover-up of–torture.

Catalog of records the Bush Administration kept in such disorganized fashion that no one could reconstruct WTF BushCo had been doing on that subject:

• Gitmo detainee records
• Torture tapes
• Finance records from the NRCC for 2002-2006 
• Database of US citizens surveilled under CIFA
• Emails pertaining to Medicare Part D passage
• Records showing oil companies cheated the federal government out of royalties for drilling on federal land
• Emails from the period when Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby were planning their Plame cover-up
• The talking point document Scooter Libby used to leak Valerie Wilson’s identity to Judy Miller on July 8, 2003
• Almost all the emails (stored on RNC servers) documenting illlegal politicization of government
• Karl Rove’s collected works

(What am I missing?)

You see, historically, authoritarians usually happen to be superb record-keepers. That has been their undoing, once historians got to them. One thing the Bush fuckers got right (from their perspective, mind you) was to avoid leaving usable records.

Remember Rashid Rauf? Because of him (and Dick Cheney, as I explain below), you’ve got to either try to squeeze your Tom’s of Maine down into 3 ounce tubes or use crappy sugar-sweet toothpaste when you travel.

Rauf is the Pakistani who was kibbitzing a bunch of British wannabe terrorists without passports, teaching them how to make bombs out of liquids in airplane bathrooms.

The story around Rauf’s arrest (and the subsequent fear-mongering about the purported plot) was always sketchy. As I wrote in 2006, news reports basically said he got arrested, without explaining how or by whom.

Here’s me reading the MSNBC scoop about the US launching the arrests before the Brits were ready:

Americans pushed the Brits to do two things they didn’t want to do. First, they pushed the Brits to arrest Rashid Rauf before they wanted to.

The British official said the Americans also argued over the timing of the arrest of suspected ringleader Rashid Rauf in Pakistan, warning that if he was not taken into custody immediately, the U.S. would "render" him or pressure the Pakistani government to arrest him.

British security was concerned that Rauf be taken into custody "in circumstances where there was due process," according to the official, so that he could be tried in British courts. Ultimately, this official says, Rauf was arrested over the objections of the British.

This passage is actually quite interesting. The US wanted Rauf arrested. The Brits wanted to wait–they wanted to wait until they could arrest Rauf in such a way that he could be tried in the UK. The US threatened to render him. The Brits tried to hold out, so they could prosecute him legally. And then … that’s where the article is less clear. Was Rauf arrested using due process? Will Rauf be a defendant and witness in the UK? Or did the US snatch him, making him useless for a legal prosecution and possibly endangering the larger case in the UK?

So to put Murray and MSNBC together, the US wanted Rauf arrested right away. The Brits wanted to wait so they could use due process. The US threatened to "render" Rauf. The Brits complained.

And then he got arrested.

But by whom, and in what way? As I suggested before, the MSNBC article just drops the whole question, making it clear that the US won that battle, somehow. But it doesn’t explain–was he rendered? Did the US force Pakistan to arrest him? Where is he now? Who has custody?

Well, apparently, Suskind answers the unanswered questions about Rauf’s arrest … and would you be surprised if I told you Bush ordered Cheney to have it done in time to fear-monger leading up to the 2006 elections? Here’s Ron Suskind on Fresh Air describing what happened, transcribed at AfterDowningStreet:

NPR: I want to talk just a little about this fascinating episode you describe in the summer of 2006, when President Bush is very anxious about some intelligence briefings that he is getting from the British. What are they telling him?

SUSKIND: In late July of 2006, the British are moving forward on a mission they’ve been–an investigation they’ve been at for a year at that point, where they’ve got a group of "plotters," so-called, in the London area that they’ve been tracking…Bush gets this briefing at the end of July of 2006, and he’s very agitated. When Blair comes at the end of the month, they talk about it and he says, "Look, I want this thing, this trap snapped shut immediately." Blair’s like, "Well, look, be patient here. What we do in Britain"–Blair describes, and this is something well known to Bush–"is we try to be more patient so they move a bit forward. These guys are not going to breathe without us knowing it. We’ve got them all mapped out so that we can get actual hard evidence, and then prosecute them in public courts of law and get real prosecutions and long prison terms"…

Well, Bush doesn’t get the answer he wants, which is "snap the trap shut." And the reason he wants that is because he’s getting all sorts of pressure from Republicans in Congress that his ratings are down. These are the worst ratings for a sitting president at this point in his second term, and they’re just wild-eyed about the coming midterm elections. Well, Bush expresses his dissatisfaction to Cheney as to the Blair meeting, and Cheney moves forward.

NPR: So you got the British saying, "Let’s carefully build our case. Let’s get more intelligence." Bush wants an arrest and a political win. What does he do?

SUSKIND: Absolutely. What happens is that then, oh, a few days later, the CIA operations chief–which is really a senior guy. He’s up there in the one, two, three spots at CIA, guy named Jose Rodriguez ends up slipping quietly into Islamabad, Pakistan, and he meets secretly with the ISI, which is the Pakistani intelligence service. And suddenly a guy in Pakistan named Rashid Rauf, who’s kind of the contact of the British plotters in Pakistan, gets arrested. This, of course, as anyone could expect, triggers a reaction in London, a lot of scurrying. And the Brits have to run through the night wild-eyed and basically round up 25 or 30 people. It’s quite a frenzy. The British are livid about this. They talk to the Americans. The Americans kind of shrug, "Who knows? You know, ISI picked up Rashid Rauf."

DAVIES: So the British did not even get a heads-up from the United States that this arrest was going to happen?

SUSKIND: Did not get a heads-up. In fact, the whole point was to mislead the British…The British did not know about it, frankly, until I reported it in the book…

What’s interesting is that the White House already had its media plan already laid out before all of this occurred so that the president and vice president immediately–even, in Cheney’s case, before the arrest, the day before–started to capitalize on the war on terror rhetoric and political harvest, which of course they used for weeks to come, right into the fall, about, "The worst plot since 9/11, that has been foiled, and this is why you want us in power." [my emphasis]

None of it surprising (though the news that Jose Rodriguez is the guy who did Cheney’s political dirty work for him makes Rodriguez’ destruction of the torture tapes more interesting). But useful to have more details about how these fuckers work.

And of course, Cheney’s personal involvement in Pakistan policy is one of the reasons things are going FUBAR over there today.

And we’re all still surviving on hotel shampoo when we travel, two years later.

Porter Goss’ tenure as Director of the CIA is noted for two things above all–and neither has to do with the collection and analysis of intelligence.

First, there’s his buddy, Dusty Foggo, whom Goss appointed to be Executive Director of the CIA. In that role, Foggo is alleged to have exploited the weaknesses of the earmark system–not to mention Duke Cunningham’s weakness for whores–to steer millions of dollars in contracts to the company of his childhood friend, Brent Wilkes. In addition, Foggo pulled strings to get his girlfriend hired at CIA.

Then, there’s Jose Rodriguez, whom Goss appointed to be director of the CIA’s Clandestine Services after Goss ousted Stephen Kappes because he wasn’t a political hack. Rodriguez is best known for ordering the torture tapes depicting Abu Zubaydah’s and al-Nashiri’s interrogation destroyed–in spite of the many court orders and outstanding requests from the 9/11 Commission and Congress for such evidence. Goss says he wasn’t involved, but Rodriguez faced no discipline for having the tapes destroyed–even in spite of the fact that then DNI John Negroponte warned Goss to make sure the tapes weren’t destroyed. Rodriguez also spiked the internal CIA investigation into why the folks who rendered Abu Omar out of Italy were so damned incompetent–leaving a cell phone trail right up to the CIA’s doors, not to mention thousands of dollars in hotel bills because spooks must have luxury, don’t you know.

In short, Porter Goss is known to be an incredible hack who oversaw great ethical (and legal) abuses that, at least so long as Goss was in charge, escaped all consequences.

Precisely the kind of guy you’d want in charge of Congress’ Ethics Review Board, right? Oh wait, I mean, precisely the kind of guy Nancy Pelosi would want in charge of Congress’ Ethics Review Board (h/t John Forde). You and I, of course, would think it an utterly ludicrous idea to put a guy like Goss, with huge ethical stains on his record, in charge of Congress’ ethics. But I guess the Speaker of the House doesn’t agree.

I can’t tell you how many times I started this post–an open thread for predictions of who, how many, how explicit the crimes that Bush would pardon. But every time I started the post, I deleted it–thinking it was unseemly to start Pardon Watch this early (though, admittedly, a full year after Libby’s commutation kicked off the self-protective pardon-fest).

But now Charlie Savage has broached the subject. And Dan Froomkin piled on, too, noting the vile Victoria Toensing calling for pre-emptive pardons of any and all long-term investigations:

‘The president should pre-empt any long-term investigations,’ said Victoria Toensing, who was a Justice Department counterterrorism official in the Reagan administration. ‘If we don’t protect these people who are proceeding in good faith, no one will ever take chances.’

(I guess Victoria doesn’t have much faith in McCain’s ability to win this election….)

So I hereby kick off a once-monthly post calling for predictions on how many Get Out of Jail So You Can Keep Me Out of Jail Free cards Bush issues. Plus one for Roger Clemons, because Bush is a baseball guy…

We’ll give out five hub-caps, one for the most accurate guess each month. bmaz–I’m adding five hubcaps onto your normal football requisition.

Here are my current predictions and Bush’s likely logic behind each:

• Karl Rove–a vague pardon for any and all crimes committed during the Bush Administration, with an added "Official Duties" claim to give him qualified immunity against the lawsuits
• Scooter Libby, because outing a CIA NOC on the Vice President’s order shouldn’t be criminal
• John Yoo, because a President really ought to be able to crush the testicles of a person’s child
• Brent Wilkes (to protect Dusty Foggo) but not Duke Cunningham (because he’s a snitch)
• Jose Rodriguez, since the torture portrayed on the torture tapes was ordered by Bush before the relevant opinions were written
• Alberto Gonzales, so Bush can return the favor of when Gonzales cleansed his drunk driving records in the past
• Steven Griles, because the oil companies really need to be able to rip off American taxpayers to be competitive
• Bandar Bush bin Sultan, because it will be a lucrative business move in the long run and because I can assure you the Bush family doesn’t want you to learn about the covert ops the Saudis were doing with money laundered through defense contract deals
• Roger Clemens, because Bush is a baseball guy

That’s it for me for this year’s predictions–a relatively modest list, I think. No Cheney, no Addington (I think both would consider it an indignity to be pardoned by someone like Bush). No Abramoff, because he’s a snitch. No Jeff Skilling (because he hasn’t be donating to the Republican party of late). None of the legislators (Stevens, Doolittle, Renzi, and the rest of the Abramoff crowd), because it would "taint" Bush’s legacy.

Who am I missing?

It’s going to be a busy day for me, but one thing I’m hoping to do is nick down to Borders (hey, this branch is unionized, and Borders is local to Ann Arbor) to buy Jane Mayer’s new book. If for no other reason then to find out more about the meeting between John Helgerson, the CIA Inspector General, and Dick Cheney.

One of the lingering mysteries in Washington has been what happened to the CIA internal probe into homicides involving the program. You note that CIA Inspector General (IG) John Helgerson undertook a study and initially concluded, just as the Red Cross and most legal authorities in the United States and around the world, that the program was illegal and raised serious war crimes issues. Helgerson was summoned repeatedly to meet privately with Vice President Cheney, the man who provided the impetus for the program, and it appears as a result of these meetings the IG’s report was simply shut down. Would those probes have brought into question the Justice Department’s specific approval of torture techniques used by the CIA–approval that involved not just John Yoo, but much more specifically Michael Chertoff and Alice Fisher, the two figures who ran the criminal division?

The fact that John Helgerson—the inspector general at the CIA who is supposed to act as an independent watchdog—was called in by Cheney to discuss his tough report in 2004 is definitely surprising news. Asked for comment, Helgerson through the CIA spokesman denied he felt pressured in any way by Cheney. But others I interviewed have described the IG’s office to me as extremely politicized. They have also suggested it was very unusual that the Vice President interjected himself into the work of the IG. Fred Hitz, who had the same post in previous administrations, told me that no vice president had ever met with him. He thought it highly unusual.

Helgerson’s 2004 report had been described to me as very disturbing, the size of two Manhattan phone books, and full of terrible descriptions of mistreatment. The confirmation that Helgerson was called in to talk with Cheney about it proves that–as early as then–the Vice President’s office was fully aware that there were allegations of serious wrongdoing in The Program.

We know that in addition, the IG investigated several alleged homicides involving CIA detainees, and that Helgerson’s office forwarded several to the Justice Department for further consideration and potential prosecution. The only case so far that has been prosecuted in the criminal courts is that involving David Passaro—a low-level CIA contractor, not a full official in the Agency. Why have there been no charges filed? It’s a question to which one would expect that Congress and the public would like some answers. Sources suggested to me that, as you imply, it is highly uncomfortable for top Bush Justice officials to prosecute these cases because, inevitably, it means shining a light on what those same officials sanctioned. Chertoff’s role in particular seems ripe for investigation. Alice Fisher’s role also seems of interest. Much remains to be uncovered. [my emphasis]

This report Mayer and Horton are discussing is the same one that I talked about repeatedly in my tracking of the torture tape disappearance.

A classified report issued last year by the Central Intelligence Agency’s inspector general warned that interrogation procedures approved by the C.I.A. after the Sept. 11 attacks might violate some provisions of the international Convention Against Torture, current and former intelligence officials say.

[snip]

The report, by John L. Helgerson, the C.I.A.’s inspector general, did not conclude that the techniques constituted torture, which is also prohibited under American law, the officials said. But Mr. Helgerson did find, the officials said, that the techniques appeared to constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment under the convention.

In that context, I was mostly interested in the remarkable coincidence of timing. The report was first done on May 7, 2004–almost the same time as Gonzales, Belllinger, and David Addington had a briefing at which the destruction of the torture tapes was discussed. And Doug Jehl had published the most comprehensive account of the IG report (that is, before Mayer’s book came out) on November 9, 2005, within days of when the torture tapes were destroyed. In short, I have argued in the past, that IG report and the leaks about it in November probably had as much to do with the torture tape destruction as Dana Priest’s article on the black sites.

And now we learn that Cheney was harassing Helgerson in 2004, around the same time as Cheney’s counsel was discussing destroying the torture tapes. That’s rather curious timing, don’t you think?