The Bush End-Run on Torturing Prisoners

(10 am. – promoted by ek hornbeck)

Are we done with the finger pointing yet?  The CIA says that “Democrats” were briefed.  The “Democrats” say that the CIA is lying.  Nobody is talking about the fact that waterboarding is illegal anymore.  The Bush administration tried to do an end-run around Congress, that much we know now.

The Florida Democrat also expounded on the process by which congressmembers were briefed.

“The basic law which comes out of the Church Committee hearings that were the topic of some discussion earlier this morning on NPR states that the executive should brief the full House and Senate intelligence committees on any proposed or ongoing activities,” Graham said. “The one exception to that is what is referred to as covert action, where there is a conscious desire to keep the signature of the United States, its fingerprints, off an operation. In that case the president can direct that only the eight leaders, the four congressional leaders and the four leaders of the intelligence committees will be briefed. This is the so-called Gang of 8. In those briefings, you’re not allowed to bring any staff. Generally you’re called to the meeting with limited notice and no opportunity to prepare since you’re not informed as to what the subject of the briefing is going to be. And then after the briefing you can’t discuss it with anyone except those that were in the room.”

Did you see the end-run they tried to pull?  Follow me after the fold…

Let me take the sentences from the quote that show this end-run:

“…states that the executive should brief the full House and Senate intelligence committees on any proposed or ongoing activities.”

Then, take this into consideration:

“The one exception to that is what is referred to as covert action, where there is a conscious desire to keep the signature of the United States, its fingerprints, off an operation. In that case the president can direct that only the eight leaders, the four congressional leaders and the four leaders of the intelligence committees will be briefed.”

Now do you see how the Bush administration tried to pull an end-run around Congress in regard to its torture program?  In the very same article, former chairman Bob Graham states:

“I don’t know precisely what she was told because according to the CIA’s report they briefed the House and the Senate leadership in separate events approximately three weeks apart,” Graham replied.

To put this into a nutshell, the Bush administration didn’t want its “fingerprints” on the fact that it was torturing prisoners, so, they decided to pull an end-run around the law by claiming that these interrogations were COVERT OPERATIONS.  Under that classification, the Bush administration was only required to brief eight people in Congress on what was occurring, and, those eight people were forbidden to talk about it with anyone who wasn’t given the same briefing.

The “operations” being conducted that ultimately led to the capture of Zubaydah was almost certainly “covert” in nature.  The information gained from his interrogation was certainly classified information.  But, to say that the INTERROGATION of Zubaydah itself was a “covert operation” was nothing more than the Bush administration trying to do an end-run around the law and Congress.

What was “covert” about doing an interrogation on a prisoner?  

Where it was done, maybe?  We know that the Bush administration and the CIA had “black sites” that didn’t exist until they were exposed.  However, was the fact that Zubaydah was being interrogated at black sites part of that briefing?  Consider this article from Politico:

The document describes a September 24, 2002 briefing to Pelosi and then-intelligence chairman Porter Goss (R-Fla.) this way: “Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of particular EITs that had been employed.”

So, we can say with pretty much certainty that the fact the interrogations were being conducted at CIA black sites weren’t part of those briefings.  That would take away the “covertness” of the location argument.

Who was doing the interrogation, maybe?  We know that the CIA, FBI, and Military Intelligence were all involved during the interrogations.  Nothing about that reached “covert” status.  Bringing in contractors to do interrogations?  Those contractors would have been given DoD certification and clearance at LEAST, and working for the CIA, they would have been cleared much higher.  That physicians and psychologists were called in?  There was nothing out of the ordinary in them being brought into the interrogations.  Of course you want a psychologist on hand, and if the subject’s health was questionable to begin with, a physician.  

So, the ONLY thing “covert” about the interrogations was the fact that we were torturing the prisoners for information.  THAT was why the Bush administration didn’t want their “fingerprints” on it.  THAT was why the Bush administration tried to do an end-run around the law on who was briefed.

Then, we have to remember, that the torture, ie waterboarding, was voluntarily stopped by the CIA and its contractors in 2004.  The Inspector General of the CIA did a report on the interrogation tactics dated May 7, 2004.  It was in June 2004 that CNN reported that memos would be released showing that Donald Rumsfeld did not authorize waterboarding.  But, look at the report from 2004:

The list of aggressive tactics included the following:

1. Use of scenario to convince the detainee that death or severe pain could be imminent for him or his family

2. Exposure to cold weather or water

3. Use of a wet towel or dripping water to induce a perception of suffocating.

4. And mild noninjurious physical contact such as grabbing someone’s arm, poking them in the chest or light shoving.

Only tactic number four, mild noninjurious physical contact, was approved.

Mild, NONinjurious physical contact was the ONLY interrogation technique that was APPROVED.  If the ONLY interrogation tactic that was APPROVED was mild, noninjurious physical contact, then, how was it that Ali Soufan just testified that the CIA brought in its own interrogators and contractors to torture Zubaydah TWICE during his interrogation?  Or, that Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times if it wasn’t approved?  Or did we forget about this?

WASHINGTON –  Administration officials, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, are vigorously lobbying Congress to exempt the CIA from a ban on mistreatment of detainees. But many former and some current CIA operatives say – morality aside – that mistreatment and torture aren’t useful interrogation tactics and the loophole should be rejected.

“We ought to declare we don’t do this. We ought to declare the intelligence isn’t worth it,” said Frank Anderson, a former chief of the CIA’s Near East and South Asia division in the agency’s Operations Directorate, the clandestine service.

There’s also the question of what brutality does to those who carry it out, Anderson said.

“I will rebel against anyone who wants my son to torture, because it won’t ever heal,” he said, speaking at a conference this week sponsored by the Middle East Institute.

Anderson’s views were echoed, with some variation, in interviews with a half-dozen current and former CIA and military officers with extensive field experience. Retired and active officers made similar arguments against abusing prisoners, but none of the current CIA or military officers would agree to speak on the record because they aren’t authorized to talk to the media.

Robert Baer, a former CIA covert officer who worked in Iraq and elsewhere, said he recently spent time in an Israeli prison, talking with detainees from the radical Palestinian groups Islamic Jihad and Hamas for a British documentary about suicide bombers.

The Israelis, Baer said, have learned that they can gain valuable information by establishing personal relationships with the inmates and gaining their trust.

“They found that torture, abusive tactics, made things overall worse for them politically,” Baer said. “The Israelis are friendly with their prisoners. They play cards with them and allow them to contact their families. They are getting in their minds to determine what makes up a suicide bomber.”

Why lobby for something that the CIA had already supposedly stopped doing on its own a year earlier?  But, a Republican president trying to do an illegal activity while circumventing Congress and the law isn’t a new concept.  Iran-Contra ring a bell?

The transactions that took place in the Iran-Contra scandal were contrary to the legislation of the Democratic-dominated Congress and contrary to official Reagan administration policy.

Part of the deal was that, in July 1985, the United States would send 508 American-made TOW anti-tank missiles from Israel to Iran for the safe exchange of a hostage, the Reverend Benjamin Weir.

After that successful transfer, the Israelis offered to ship 500 HAWK surface-to-air missiles to Iran in November 1985, in exchange for the release of all remaining American hostages being held in Lebanon. Eventually the arms were sold with proceeds going to the contras, and the hostages were released.

In February 1986, 1,000 TOW missiles were shipped to Iran. From May to November, there were more shipments of various weapons and parts.

And, then there was the cover-up:

The hearings surrounding the scandals were televised from May to August in 1987. Military aide Marine Lt. Colonel Oliver North, former CIA chief William J. Casey, National Security Advisor John Poindexter, former defense secretary Caspar Weinberger, and many other high-ranking government officials were publicly investigated.

It was finally found that National Security Advisor Poindexter had personally authorized the diversion of money to the Contra rebels; all the while withholding the information from President Reagan. The CIA’s William J. Casey played a part in the conspiracy, but he died during the hearings.

Is it me, or, does anyone else find it an amazing coincidence that when a Republican President breaks the law, people die during the investigation, but, that is for another essay.  In this case, it is clear that the Bush administration did, indeed, try to circumvent the law on what was reported to the full Congress in the hopes that it never came to light that they did, in fact, torture prisoners, at times, to death.