The Makings Of A Double Cross
Since the scandal involving the destruction of CIA tapes surfaced I have been trying to compile information regarding it. I have, thus far, made a few entries regarding the issue, but wanted to delve further into it having found some very interesting information.
First, Michael Ratner, the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights and noted human rights lawyer, has made numerous points regarding the tapes that are of value. The first is actual quite simple. If the CIA was worried that the tapes could expose who was involved in the interrogations, as they’ve stated, they could have simply digitally pixilated out the faces of those involved, a procedure that is, by no means, complicated.
The second is that the only reason to actually destroy the tapes is to conceal the methods used in the interrogation process; that much, I believe, is evident. If the tapes showed acts of torture, it would violate the United States Anti-Torture Statue, and those responsible could be prosecuted under that law and face penalties – including everyone knowingly involved in initiating the policy itself. Being that the United States does not adhere to the authority of the International Criminal Court regarding such matters, the only legal hurdle left to face would be the US’s own Anti-Torture Statute.
Now, as many of you are aware, an ex-CIA agent, John Kiriakou, recently conducted several interviews about the tapes and the methods used during the interrogations. Being that he is no longer a member of the Central Intelligence Agency, to reveal that information Kiriakou would have had to have gone through a Clearance Review to be able to reveal that waterboarding was in fact used as a method of interrogation. In essence, the Central Intelligence Agency would have had to clear it before Kiriakou was able to discuss the issue. Interestingly, the CIA has now asked the US Justice Department to investigate whether Kiriakou illegally disclosed classified information.
Given that, the CIA has done at least one of two things.
The first is that it has all but admitted that the United States employs waterboarding as a interrogation technique, not to mention the fact that it did so at a Black Site, being that the tapes were not made at Guantanamo or any other known facility that the CIA has been willing to openly admit to.
The second, and this is speculation on my part, though not out of the realm of possibility, is that it quietly approved Kiriakou’s public admission to protect itself.
Now, that might sound absurd to some of you, but the history of the CIA as it pertains to its relationships with those administrations that have abused it should not be overlooked. In truth, it works both ways. The CIA has also been responsible for manipulating administrative policy in the past, there’s no question of that, especially during the Dulles era. But in this case, the CIA might very well be attempting to forgo being scapegoated by placing the blame where the blame actually lies – on the administration itself. The very same administration that has worked diligently to categorize waterboarding as a procedure that does not constitute torture.
The most telling piece of evidence that supports this theory is that four members of the Bush administration openly discussed the destruction of the tapes with the CIA between 2003 and 2005. The four individuals, Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, John Bellinger, and Harriet Miers, had foreknowledge of the tapes contents, and their role in discussing the destruction of the tapes not only underscores the administration’s involvement in the creation of interrogation policy itself, but that it played a role in willingly covering up evidence that demonstrated its criminality.
Also of import is that fact that the 9/11 Commission made repeated requests to the CIA for all materials regarding the interrogation of al-Qaeda suspects. Such material would have included the tapes in question, which were not made available to the Commission. This, of course, brings into question the CIA’s motives for not supplying the tapes to the Commission. Was it at the behest of the administration? Were the tapes ultimately destroyed because their content, in the hands of the Commission, would have been disastrous for the administration? The Commission asked the CIA for all documents, reports, and information regarding interrogation in 2003 and 2004. Of course, by 2004 the Abu Ghraib scandal had broke, so handing over tapes that showed US operatives torturing an individual would have certainly been a political risk not worth taking. Thus, in 2004, the CIA claimed that it had, in fact, handed over all relevant materials to the Commission. The tapes, of course, were not.
Some in Congress are now claiming that the CIA is guilty of obstruction of justice. Backed into a corner, the question that must now be asked is if the CIA will fight back, and by doing so work to turn the tables on an administration that has abused it for the last five years.
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Sunday, December 23rd, 2007 at 1:46 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 23rd, 2007 at 2:22 pm
My first thought when this story broke was what kind of MORONS would video tape interrogations like those, and under those circumstances? These CIA boys are supposed to be the top shelf of the intel world and they do a “Paris Hilton sex tape” move like THAT?
Gee, let’s create our own implicating evidence!
Ever see those silent movies with the goofy cops with the tall hats and swinging billy clubs?
The only bad thing is that Congress is full of the same types of morons.
December 23rd, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Releasing info to slander the administration that abused it? Possible…I think there’s more to it than that. A shit load of infighting isn’t out of the realm of possibility.
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:03 pm
[quote comment="36239"]My first thought when this story broke was what kind of MORONS would video tape interrogations like those, and under those circumstances? These CIA boys are supposed to be the top shelf of the intel world and they do a “Paris Hilton sex tape” move like THAT?
Gee, let’s create our own implicating evidence!
Ever see those silent movies with the goofy cops with the tall hats and swinging billy clubs?
The only bad thing is that Congress is full of the same types of morons.[/quote]
I am not surprised… although I am making somewhat of a generalizaion here, I have never felt that the “best and brightest” of this world end up in Politics or even high profile agencies such as the CIA etc. When you think back to high school, what career paths did the smartest kids take? Science & Engineering. Which is why the admitting average for those streams is always much higher than for a BA. Of course there are exceptions and there are those people who get BAs and are brilliant in law, business etc. And certainly there are some that don’t do any post-secondary (MG) and are obviously brilliant, but those are exceptions. IN GENERAL, the brains go to Science & Engineering.
Your typical politician probably has their 3yr BA and is of average intelligence. Most likely they got where they are through connections (Dubya) or possibly a dynamic personality. I am not clear what the background would be for “CIA boys” but I would speculate some of the same types, some military (which I can’t speak for)… perhaps some through law enforcement? I heard how hard it is supposed to be to get in to law enforcement as the written and physical exams are supposedly brutal. On a lark I applied to the police force yeras ago to see how hard these tests were… what a joke! Both were so easy.
Therefore, when you think of your typical politician, CIA boy etc., think of the moron from your highschool class who took 3 tries to barely pass grade 10 general math, and you will never be surprised or disappointed with what they may say or do.
RE MG post above… on first read it did sound absurd. But after some review, not so much.
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:49 pm
This all seems part of some beautifully entertaining political thriller. It’s a shame lives like ours are caught in the midst of it. All we want to do is live.
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:16 pm
I guess someone needed to profit from a bit of negative publicity. Get peoples imaginations going to work towards achieving a certain goal. Whether it be to push someone out of the office and replace them for their own gains, or maybe a wistleblower trying to get things done right. Who knows. That demonstration was rather disturbing (Even moreso since the guy being tortured seems to have volunteered).
This is why I stay out of the whole political world alltogether. Its too damn corrupt and twisted to try and begin to wrap my mind around. I can do without having to constantly think about US politics while trying to make sense of whats going on in Canada.
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:44 pm
I still don’t know when the boarding took place, where it took place and who filmed it and why?
Is the tape CIA property? Once the CIA got the info they wanted, why keep the tape? Has the tape, in fact, been destroyed? If the Cia owned it, why can’t they trash it? When did a judge ask for it? When did the comittie ask for it?
What law, if any was broken? Obstuction of justice is far less serious than “Torture”.
Nobody seems to know exactly what is going on……so…. “Scandal? I dunno. Confusion yes.
Politics….oh, yeah……Will the American people care? Doubt it?
December 24th, 2007 at 1:08 am
C’mon guys…
You can’t really be THAT surprised they were stupid enough to tape everything. This is a country that has been revolving on the lies of damn near every government branch and all affiliated agencies for the last 7 years. As far as an intended release of information? Another thing that would be no surprise.
They’ve been at it so long now, they know how to play the game.
I’m afraid that until there is finally a new president here in the U.S., we’re pretty much fucked.
December 24th, 2007 at 2:15 am
I think regardless of who gets in next, you’re still fucked. Bush got back in because the majority of the US population were stupid enough to vote for him.
Guess what? They still are. 7 years is a long time, but it’s not a long enough time to convert right wing, religiously fanatical extremists who are stupid enough to support wars they don’t need for reasons they don’t understand.
They’re the same people who still oppose gay marriage because of their religious beliefs. “Love Thy Neighbor (So Long As He Ain’t A Queer.)” The same people who join the Army because they think shooting brown people is synonymous with patriotism.
Not only do they not care whether waterboarding is classified as torture, they don’t care who it’s used on, so long as the person it IS used on is deemed less deserving of the freedom they so love to flaunt.
Does this apply to everyone? No. Of course not.
But all it takes is a majority, and sadly, there is one.
December 24th, 2007 at 2:15 am
speaking of a new president of the united states, has anyone hear heard of Ron Paul or better yet, the re-love-ution? he is 100% againgst any form of torture. no word of a lie he is the anit-bush. but don’t take my word for it!!!
here are some videos, i can’t put in too words how much i hope you will take five minutes and watch them… or wait i just did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SLi2x_FkSY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsDlO2Lr_cg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKZmIzEMUN8
December 24th, 2007 at 4:11 am
apathy is the greatest violator of progress
December 24th, 2007 at 9:18 am
–
Matthew Good wrote:
“But in this case, the CIA might very well be attempting to forgo being scapegoated by placing the blame where the blame actually lies – on the administration itself.”
and
“the question that must now be asked is if the CIA will fight back, and by doing so work to turn the tables on an administration that has abused it for the last five years.”
–
What about the recent NIE report on Iran’s nuclear “incapability”? Is this simply clearer evidence of the CIA fighting back against an abusive and manipulative administration?
And, assuming that it is evidence, the CIA clearly is doing the American public a great service by protecting it against the malicious pro-war campaign Cheney is known to have been pushing, and obviously against a second unjustified war. Further, how should I feel about the CIA’s apparent ability and willingness to police the integrity of the American political discussion?
Also, there clearly is substantial political in-fighting going on when Condoleeza Rice consults former democratic Presidents Carter and Clinton on foreign policy and the CIA is knowingly releasing information which destroys the neo-con drum-beat to war with Iran. Of course, the CIA theoretically is independent of the administration and may release whatever intelligence information it believes is correct. However, I don’t think it would be ignorant of the political effect the NIE would have on the administration.
P. Martini
December 24th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
“speaking of a new president of the united states, has anyone hear heard of Ron Paul or better yet, the re-love-ution? he is 100% againgst any form of torture. no word of a lie he is the anit-bush.”
I’m anti bush and I’m 100% against torture.
That doesn’t mean I’d make a good president.
Feel free to write me in on the ballot, though.
December 25th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
[quote comment="36248"] I have never felt that the “best and brightest” of this world end up in Politics or even high profile agencies such as the CIA etc. When you think back to high school, what career paths did the smartest kids take? Science & Engineering. [/quote]
I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering (specializing in Aerospace) and the most mentally engaging courses I took in University were the Philosophy courses that I had crammed into every spare I had. “The best and the brightest” is rather open to interpretation, but having seen both firsthand, I think the best and the brightest went into Philosophy. Somehow I doubt that many Philosophers are employed by the CIA so your argument still holds true. Psychologists and lawyers maybe?