Card Houses And Strong Winds
George Tenet.
Whenever I write or hear that name one word comes to mind – scapegoat. Not surprisingly, it seems that the CIA’s former clandestine service chief, Jose Rodriguez, might not be in the mood to join Tenet in that distinction.
Rodriguez, on whose watch the now infamous CIA tapes were destroyed, has indicated that might be willing to cut an immunity deal regarding his upcoming testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee.
So the question has to be asked – what damaging information does Rodriguez possess that would push him to consider such a deal? Even more, was Rodriguez even directly involved in the decision making process or did he simply follow orders? And if so, then what was on the tapes that was so damaging that it prompted members of the administration to seek their destruction?
From the Times Online…
“The House intelligence committee has subpoenaed Rodriguez to appear for a hearing on January 16. Last week the CIA began opening its files to congressional investigators. Silvestre Reyes, a Democrat who is chairing the committee, has said he was “not looking for scapegoats” – a hint to Rodriguez that he would like him to talk.
Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer, believes the scandal could reach deep into the White House. “The CIA and Jose Rodriguez look bad, but he’s probably the least culpable person in the process. He didn’t wake up one day and decide, ‘I’m going to destroy these tapes.’ He checked with a lot of people and eventually he is going to get his say.”
Johnson says Rodriguez got his fingers burnt during the Iran-contra scandal while working for the CIA in Latin America in the 1980s. Even then he sought authorisation from senior officials. But when summoned to the FBI for questioning, he was told Iran-contra was “political – get your own lawyer”.
He learnt his lesson and recently appointed Robert Bennett, one of Washington’s most skilled lawyers, to handle the case of the destroyed interrogation tapes. “He has been starting to get his story out and was smart to get Bennett,” said Johnson.”
Ron Suskind’s book The One Percent Doctrine includes FBI sources that claim that the individual interrogated on the tapes, Abu Zubaydah, was…
“…mentally unstable and tangential to Al-Qaeda’s plots, and that he gave reams of unfounded information under torture - information that led law-enforcement bodies in the US to raise terror alert levels, rushing marshals and police to shopping malls, bridges and other alleged targets as Zubaydah tried to get the torture to stop. No one disputes that Zubaydah wrote a diary - and that it was written in the words of three personalities, none of them his own.
A former FBI agent who was involved in the interrogation, Daniel Coleman, said last week that the CIA knew Al-Qaeda’s leaders all believed Zubaydah “was crazy, and they knew he was always on the damn phone. You think they’re going to tell him anything?” Even though preliminary, legal interrogation gave the US good - though not unique - information, the CIA still asked for and received permission to torture him in pursuit of more data and leads.”
That, right there, may very well be the reason why the tapes were destroyed – because they contained evidence that the intelligence gleaned from Zubaydah’s torture was baseless and that the administration acted on it despite that fact for their own ends.
In the end, fear is a powerful tool. Even if it’s baseless. Better yet, especially if it’s baseless.
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 25th, 2007 at 6:03 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
December 25th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Why yes.
Interesting Post; Matt. :]
December 25th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
hmmm…….interesting
December 25th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
In the Monday Boston Globe, 12-24-07, in a story headlined ” CIA kept tapes from 9/11 panel,report finds.”
The former panel Executive Director, Philip Zelikow, found that the group had made Broad initial requests for intelligence data from interrogations. Included were repeated requests for intelligence of suspected Al Qaeda ops Abu Zubaida and Abd al-Rahim al Nashiri.
The report was released on Dec 13 th reported the New York Times.It essentially confirms earlier complaints that by witholding and then destroying the tapes, the CIA had not complied with the panel’s requests for an array of documents and other material about CIA detainees.
At the same time, the Memo indicates the commission DID NOT specifically ask for videotapes, in part because investigators had only a “Vauge understanding of what to seek.”.
CIA officials have said previously that the tapes were not provided because the Commission did not specifically ask for them.
The agency forcefully rejected the memo’s conclusions, saying it cooperated fully with an inquiry that was focused on Terrorist Plots rather than Interrogation Techniques.
“The notion that the CIA wasn’t cooperating or forthcoming with the 9/11 Commission is just plain wrong”Mark Mansfield said. It is utterly without foundation. CIA cooperation and assistance is what enabled the 9/11 Commission to reconstruct the Plot in their very comprehensive report.
Agency spokesman Mark Mansfield said the Commissions mission was to identify lessons learned from the terrorists attack and offer recommendations. ” It wasn’t to investigate interrogation techniques.”.
December 26th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Your point?
December 26th, 2007 at 3:43 am
[quote comment="36452"]CIA officials have said previously that the tapes were not provided because the Commission did not specifically ask for them.[/quote]
All future requests, subpoenas, and court orders in the US should probably include words similar to: “and all related material from black sites, presently unconfirmed or unacknowledged government contracted and/or military facilities, and all other related material, not specifically asked for, with even the remotest relevance, from sources and/or locations not specifically outlined in this request/subpoena/court order.”
And lets not forget that all this questioning of whether a court order applies even though the interrogations occurred at a black site (which at the time, the government was denying the existence of) and the court order asked for information from Guantanamo, or questioning whether or not something was withheld from the 9/11 Commission, it is all distracting from the point that a man was tortured and apparently provided intelligence…or gingerbread recipes (we don’t know).
By all means, uncovering those who knew about the tapes and those who ordered their destruction should be pursued and stand trial for any criminal activity committed. But there are much larger issues and questions at hand. Perhaps Rodriguez will offer up the keys to those answers as well. Here’s hoping.
December 26th, 2007 at 5:28 am
It’s not a lesson learned if the information obtained is under duress - it calls into question the authenticity and accuracy of such intel.
December 26th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Oh Matt - gotta plug State of War whenever Tenet comes up. Or as I’ve come to call it - Lil’ Crystal Ball disguised as a red book.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:40 am
“The Commission asked the CIA for all documents, reports, and information regarding interrogation in 2003 and 2004.”
Now, given that, are we to suppose, Robert, that because ‘tapes’ was not specified that ‘information’ is therefore rendered legally moot? Because that is one hell of a legal stretch.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Robert R - “CIA cooperation and assistance is what enabled the 9/11 Commission to reconstruct the Plot in their very comprehensive report.Agency spokesman Mark Mansfield said the Commissions mission was to identify lessons learned from the terrorists attack and offer recommendations. ” It wasn’t to investigate interrogation techniques.”.” - I know you only did a copy paste job there but do you buy any of that? A bunch of those supposed 19 highjackers are alive and the FBI has closed the case, Or - “ISI of Pakistan has been proven to have made a $100,000 payment to Atta in the weeks leading up to 9/11. The 9/11 investigation concluded “ultimately the source of the funding for the attacks is of little significance” IMO the 9/11 Commission did nothing more than give the illusion that someone actually tried to figure out what happened that day (remember there was a fight for any kind of investigation to begin with) so they can say case closed, stop looking for answers. Could those tapes as well show Zubaydah naming people that might be cause for a new investigation in to 911. My thoughts on 911 remain open because there have never been answers to some really troubling questions.
December 26th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Matthew…….The 9/11 comission was formed to investigate 9/11. Is it legal for the Police to respond to a Burglary call at your house and ask about your Dog rearing techniques. Or would that just be ” fishing”on their part?
Nathan- Good points, but if those hijackers were still alive, i’d bet we’d know about it. The US Federal Government leaks like a sieve,
So far I see nothing illegal……what’s the point of investigating? The gov has acknowledged that the suspects were boarded. Waterboarding has been stopped. I can see the enemies of the CIA seeking more info, but why would anyone in the US?
December 26th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
If you did nothing wrong, then why do you need immunity to talk? That’s the way I see it anyway. And believe me, if anyone can find a way to legally “stretch” a situation, it’s a U.S. attorney.
Not to say anything about your opinions or beliefs, Robert, because we are all entitled to them….that being said, do you live in the same U.S. I do? Because if you really believe that the government or any of their “agencies” have stopped any of their nonsense, just because they said they did, well, then you have a hell of a lot more hope than the rest of us. I come from a family who has served in the military since World War 1, and the stories I have gotten from the men in my family are a hell of a lot different than the ones touted in our history books and such. Fairy tales, no more, no less……
December 26th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
rabbit72….. no doubt interrogations are ongoing, but I doubt they are in the open anymore.
Imagine being in an American court and telling the Judge. “Robert didn’t give me the tapes”.
And the Judge asking “Did you ask for them? How many? In writing?”
And you answer, “Uh, no, we were vague because we didn’t know what to ask for.”
“We are investigating the 9/11 attack and 3 years after the evvent, we’ve decided to join the chorus in asking about Torture at Gitmo even though the tapes we didn’t ask for were not taken there.”.
At some point I gotta believe the Judge would toss you out of his court. I don’t think there is a “Scandal” and I don’t think the Tapes are “Infamous”. I think it’s the Democrats playing politics.
December 26th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Robert R - And you answer, “Uh, no, we were vague because we didn’t know what to ask for.” - ….. I got nothing for that kinda logic … you truly just blew my mind.
Robert R - I think it’s the Democrats playing politics - Should politicians not be in the business of politics ? I usually hear that same line from a right wing talking heads when they know they can’t defend the actions of their party so they try distraction techniques … look over here, look over here.
December 26th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Why in the hell has this been reduced to one small part of this entire affair?
Here it is in the simplest of terms. If you’re all right with the administration’s conduct in the destruction of tapes that very well showed torture, the policy behind it their creation, and you’re okay with it just being forgotten, then you might as well get a copy of the Constitution, throw it in the toilet, and piss on it.
If you want to argue minute points in some attempt to seem all right with the fact that a nation that espouses human rights as a foremost principle is committing abuses, then be my guest. In the end it’s quite simple. Why were the tapes destroyed? The CIA’s answer doesn’t cut it. Why were members of the administration involved in the decision? Why don’t average Americans know about Zubaydah’s mental state with regards to the intelligence supposedly gleaned that the media has since claimed saved thousands of lives - and don’t think they weren’t fed that talking point. Why is the White House putting pressure on judges to leave this alone?
This is your government. It will get away with whatever you allow it to get away with, and in doing do degrade the principles on which the nation was founded. If you’re comfortable with that, then you’re obviously either arguing for the sake of arguing or entirely for the destruction of the Republic as it should be.
National security starts and ends with the public’s right to know how that security is provided them by their elected representatives. If they are not afforded that right, then suspicion of the government itself becomes a matter of national security.
December 26th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
I just quoted the Boston Globe, looking for some specifics. You call “It” a Scandal, the tapes “Infamous” and know you call the entire thing an ” affair”. But what the hell are you talking about??? All you are doing is speculating! If the CIA flushed the tapes they MUST be guilty of something! What…..Tell me exactly who comitted what crime against whom in the “Affair” of the CIA and it’s actions in the 9/11 Comission? In fact, the 9/11 Comission went out of their way to Praise the CIA. Them’s the Facts. Now, years later you bring up torture in relation to the 9/11 attack?
Feel free to cuss out the CIA and George all you want, but they don’t owe you an explanation.
December 26th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
So if the tapes showed torture, which the CIA operative who conducted the interrogation has said they in fact did, and he also said that the procedure was okayed at the highest levels, and they were then destroyed, what are you suggesting? That it’s routine policy? And if so, why were four members of the administration involved in that decision?
That said, I never made mention of the 9/11 Commission in this entry whatsoever. I did in another entry, but not this one. This entry is about an immunity deal that Jose Rodriguez may be willing to cut. If you’d like to comment on that development please do.
December 26th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
“[quote comment="36469"]rabbit72….. no doubt interrogations are ongoing, but I doubt they are in the open anymore.”
Soooo….since things are not out in the open, that makes it okay? Like our continued occupation of countries we had no business in in the first place?
The fact that the U.S. government spends their time bullying others, and going out of their way to protect “their own”, no matter what the consequence, well, excuse my language, but that’s utter bullshit.
They may not owe Matt an explanation, but they sure as hell owe quite a few to the American public, the people our government are supposed to be protecting. Giving Mr. Rodriguez ANY kind of deal would be a slap in the face, and a big “fuck you” to the citizens of this country.
So is my OPINION….