Buck Naked Politics

Slate: Legal Fictions Foisted on the Public by the Bush Administration's Crack Team of Legal Scholars (a 2007 round-up)

By Teh Nutroots |  We've already read and enjoyed Juan Cole's top 10 myths for 2007.  Now in Slate, Dahlia Lithwick (Legal Fictions) gives us the Bush Administration's top 10 dumbest legal arguments.  It's a must-read for anyone who has lost count of the Bush Administration's many attempts to extend its reach into the everyday personal affairs of average American citizens....for our own good, of course. 

The Bush administration continues to limit our basic freedoms, conceal its own worst behavior, and insist that it does all this in order to make us more free. In that spirit, it seemed an opportune moment to commemorate the administration's worst legal justifications and arguments of the year.  (Slate)

Torture Tapes: Rodriguez May Sing (and Implicate the White House)

by  D. Cupples | The Times of London ran a fascinating article today (excerpts below):

"The CIA chief who ordered the destruction of secret videotapes recording the harsh interrogation [likely illegal torturing] of two top Al-Qaeda suspects has indicated he may seek immunity from prosecution in exchange for testifying before the House intelligence committee.

"Jose Rodriguez, former head of the CIA’s clandestine service, is determined not to become the fall guy in the controversy over the CIA’s use of torture, according to intelligence sources...."

Torture Tape Story: is it OK to Leak Certain Classified Info?

by D. Cupples |  In an unprecedented move, the White House wisely chose to refrain from knee-jerk denying the unfolding story about the CIA's (perhaps illegal) destruction of video tapes containing the (perhaps illegal) interrogation of detainees.  "I'm going to reserve judgment until I find out the full facts," said President Bush.

Meanwhile, anonymous Administration officials privy to classified information are steadily leaking statements to the media that give the impression that White House and CIA officials advised against the tapes' destruction -- thus, their hands were clean. The Washington Post reports:

White House Demands Headline Change but Doesn't Dispute Story

by D. Cupples | Yesterday, the White House demanded that the New York Times change the sub-headline of a story it ran Tuesday about the White House's involvement in the CIA's possibly illegal destruction of torture tapes (The Hill and The Politico).  And yet, the White House has not challenged the story itself, which stated that:

1) Earlier media reports stated that the White House was not involved in the tape destruction; and

2) Later, sources told the NY Times that four White House officials had debated the issue, and some wanted to see the tapes destroyed.

That's a big story for the White House to leave unchallenged if it isn't true.

Nameless Official: Some White House Staffers Wanted Torture Tapes Destroyed

by D. Cupples |  It's like Watergate, but not because tapes are involved. It's that every day, evidence trickles out that more people broke laws or misled the public. Yesterday, a federal judge stood up to the Bush Administration, which wants courts and Congress to bud out of investigations into the CIA's destruction of video tapes of detainee-torture sessions. Five days ago, Attorney General Michael Mukasey told Congress that he wouldn't share information about the investigation -- despite Congress's right to know.

Originally, officials said that White House lawyers had advised the CIA against destroying the tapes. A recent news report discusses evidence that some White House officials wanted the tapes destroyed.  Today's New York Times reports:

Judge Stands up to Administration re: Torture Tapes

by D. Cupples  |  Our legislative and judicial branches of government are constitutional equals of the executive branch. President Bush seemed to forget that fact of history and law when prompting  underlings to tell Congress and a court to butt out while the Justice Department and CIA  investigate the CIA's possibly illegal destruction of torture tapes in 2005.  Can you see the potential conflict of interest here?

Apparently, Federal District Judge Henry H. Kennedy doesn't feel compelled to bow as the Bush Administration wields its self-granted power to order equals around. Yesterday, Judge Kennedy ordered a court hearing to examine whether the CIA violated a judicial order by destroying videotapes.  The Washington Post reports:

Warning Flags Flap as Administration Lobbies for Telecom Amnesty

by D. Cupples |I'd like to give Pinocchio a rest, but I can't.  The Bush Administration desperately wants Congress to grant amnesty to telecommunications companies that illegally helped the Administration spy on Americans.  The Administration claims that domestic spying started after September 11, 2001, but evidence suggests that it was in the works at least six months before the attacks. Given the timing, was domestic spying really about national security?   

This issue is bigger than whether government staff listens to Dick and Jane's nightly phone sex. It's about potential law breaking, lying, and corruption.  The New York Times reports:

Mukasey's Bizarre Reason for Hiding Info from Congress

by D. Cupples |  Just last Saturday, the Justice Department announced that it will join the CIA inspector general's investigation of the CIA's 2005 destruction of torture tapes (possibly obstruction of justice).  This gave the public the impression that Attorney General Michael Mukasey might avoid his predecessor's apparent error of putting the Bush Administration's political agendas above the pursuit of justice.

Today, Mukasey severely weakened that newly created impression by telling bipartisan leaders of the   House and Senate Judiciary Committees that he would not, in fact, share information about the investigation.  His reason is bizarre.

CIA's Odd Responses About Destroyed Torture Tapes

by D. Cupples  | Yesterday, CIA Director Michael Hayden spent a few hours behind closed doors (i.e., no media) getting grilled by the House Intelligence Committee about the agency's  possibly illegal destruction of video tapes of detainees being illegally tortured. Days ago, Hayden said that the CIA had informed key congressional committee members about the torture tapes' destruction.

After yesterday's private grilling, Hayden told the press that the CIA "could have done an awful lot better at keeping the committee alert and informed."  The New York Times reports:

More on the John Kiriakou Interview and "Enhanced Interrogation"

Posted by Damozel | According to ABC News, the CIA is pretty upset with John Kiriakou. (ABC) They reportedly aren't going to prosecute him for revealing classified information, "cooler heads" having "prevailed, but that doesn't mean they aren't upset about it.  (ABC).   Based on what I've seen and heard so far I don't think---as some initially suggested---that Kirakou was a CIA surrogate foisted on the public to implant disinformation.  I hate to admit it, but it never even occurred to me to wonder about this when I was writing my earlier post.

Partly this was because many of the things Kiriakou said appeared to me to be inimical to the public image of the CIA, the Bush Administration, and "the program."  Mainly, though, the whole story struck me as a bit too much of a round unvarnished tale---too awash with sincerity and riddled with obvious logical inconsistencies---to be a deliberate attempt to influence public opinion. 

CIA Lawyers Authorized Destruction of Tapes?: The Plot Thickens (Updated)

Posted by Damozel | A "senior intelligence offiicial," sympathetic to designated scapegoat Jose Rodriguez, says that the CIA's own lawyers gave written approval to the destruction in 2005 of the interrogation tapes.

Lawyers within the clandestine branch of the Central Intelligence Agency gave written approval in advance to the destruction in 2005 of hundreds of hours of videotapes documenting interrogations of two lieutenants from Al Qaeda, according to a former senior intelligence official with direct knowledge of the episode...(NYT).

The anonymous source says that he is concerned that Rodriguez is being "unfairly singled out" (scapegoated) for destroying the tapes.(NYT)

"Necessary Torture": The Interview of John Kiriakou (Updated)

Posted by Damozel  | According to this ABC News report (and this later report in The Washington Post), a leader of the CIA team that tortured Abu Zubaydah has surfaced to explain to the public that yes, waterboarding is torture, but that it was necessary torture in that particular case.(ABC News)  The gist of his argument seemed to be that it's important to know when to compromise American principles by using torture to get information, since he concedes that waterboarding (1) is torture; and (2) compromises American principles. Sometimes the exigencies of the situation just might outweigh mere rule of law. (ABC News)  On the other hand, he also said, "We're Americans, and we're better than this. And we shouldn't be doing this kinda thing." (Talk Left)  Um....

Intelligence Chief Misleads Public Again

by D. Cupples  |  In September, Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell misleadingly told the House Intelligence Committee that Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requirements prevented agents form quickly tapping Iraqi insurgents' communications, which enabled insurgents to capture three U.S. soldiers in May. IN REALITY: officials didn't seek wiretapping approval until 86 hours after the soldiers had been captured.

McConnell also told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the "Protect America Act" had led to the capture of terrorists in Germany.   IN REALITY: German agents had uncovered the terrorist plot based on info they'd received 10 months before the Act was passed.  After other intelligence officials shared the facts with Congress, McConnell retracted that statement.

Remember those misleading statements if you read McConnell's op-ed, in today's New York Times. 

Did Congressional Democrats Condone the CIA's Secret Interrogation Program? (Updated)

Posted by Damozel  | Today's Washington Post reports that certain Congressional Democrats (including Pelosi and Rockefeller) were briefed in 2002 on the CIA's special program for extracting information from detainees. (WaPo) 

[F]our members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk. 

Investigations Launched re: CIA's Destruction of Torture Tapes

by D. Cupples  | On November 29, a "high-value" Guantanamo detainee said that he had suffered “state-sanctioned torture” in secret prisons and asked a court to order the CIA to preserve evidence of the torture (NY Times-1).  That was more than a week before we learned that the CIA had (in 2005) destroyed video tapes of torture sessions conducted in 2002.

News that the CIA had destroyed the evidence surfaced a few days ago.  Already, congressional committees, the CIA and the Justice Department have launched investigations.  The New York times reports:

 

Captain Ed: "An Executive Branch that Can Do Whatever It Pleases"

Posted by Damozel | Re: the missing CIA tapes, we've addressed this issue here (CIA Destroyed Evidence of Torture Sessions); here (Bush:  No Recollection of Being Made Aware of Any Tapes (Updated); and here (CIA Advised Not to Destroy the Tapes (Updated).

Meanwhile, the Captain would like conservatives and interested others to know that the White House has been cleared of complicity in any cover-up, but conservatives need to jump on the "fear the unchained executive" bandwagon right about now (Memeorandum). 

CIA Advised Not to Destroy the Tapes (Updated Again)

Posted by Damozel | According to The New York Times,  the Justice Department, and senior Congressional officials advised the CIA in 2003 not to destroy "hundreds of hours of videotapes showing the interrogations of two operatives of Al Qaeda, government officials said Friday." (NYT via Memeorandum)

In 2003, the agency's general counsel, Scott W. Muller, told "a small group of senior lawmakers"  that the CIA wanted to destroy the intelligence tapes because they were "no longer of any intelligence value" and also because "the interrogations they showed put agency operatives who appeared in the tapes at risk."  (NYT )  One of the Congressional leaders who told Muller not to do this was Porter J. Goss, who was Director of the CIA at the time the chief of the Directorate of Operations ordered them to be destroyed.(NYT ) 

Bush: No Recollection of Being Made Aware of Any Tapes (Updated)

  Posted by Damozel| All together now:  What did Bush know, and when did he know it?

President Bush has no recollection of anyone telling him about any CIA tapes showing "severe interrogation of detainees" (a/k/a "torture") or of being told that any CIA tapes were being destroyed. (White House via Memeorandum)   I actually don't find it difficult to believe this and it isn't crucial as far as I am concerned to the question of responsibility.  Whatever those tapes showed that it wanted to expunge from the record, the tapes would have shown the CIA implementing policies condoned---explicitly, implicitly, tacitly, or through interpretive dance---by the Bush administration.    

CIA Destroyed Evidence of Torture Sessions

by D. Cupples |  In 2005, the CIA destroyed two video tapes showing the 2002 "interrogation" of suspected al Qaeda operatives.  The agency destroyed the tapes despite the fact that Congress, the 9/11 Commission, and Justice Department prosecutors were interested in them -- meaning CIA officials may have obstructed justice (see U.S. Code). 

What's bizarre is not that the agency destroyed the tapes but that the information hit the headlines.  The New York Times reports:

White House Blocks Fitzgerald's Cooperation

By D. Cupples |  A recently released book excerpt by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan states that he had publicly asserted false information about the outing of ex-CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson. Keenly aware of his duty to us taxpayers, House Oversight Committee chairman Henry Waxman is still determined to find out what happened.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has cooperated with the Oversight Committee, but the White House hasn't.  Waxman recently wrote a letter to new Attorney General Michael Mukasey, asking for help and noting that former Attorney General Janet Reno cooperated with the Oversight Committee when the Clinton Administration was investigated.  In part, the letter states: