I really don’t want to go back over this. It’s a serious problem that no one has ever been held accountable for the torture that was conducted under the Bush administration. It’s also a serious problem that the current interim head of the CIA’s Directorate of Operations is guilty of ordering the destruction of video evidence of torture that was conducted in Thailand. It’s nice that a woman has finally risen to such a high level of responsibility within the agency, but I don’t give a crap about advances in diversity when she is up to her eyeballs in obstruction of justice. I also don’t care that the Department of Justice has looked at this issue twice and declined to prosecute anyone.
The newly confirmed Director of Central Intelligence, John Brennan, has to decide whether he will make this woman the permanent Director of Operations, and he has apparently sought some cover for his decision.
To help navigate the sensitive decision on the clandestine service chief, Brennan has taken the unusual step of assembling a group of three former CIA officials to evaluate the candidates. Brennan announced the move in a previously undisclosed notice sent to CIA employees last week, officials said…
…The group’s members were identified as former senior officials John McLaughlin, Stephen Kappes and Mary Margaret Graham.
Those three former officers were all involved in the tumultuous and disastrous 2004-5 directorate of Porter Goss. In fact, all three of them resigned from the CIA around the same time. McLaughlin had been the interim Director before Goss arrived. Steve Kappes fought with Goss’s staff. And Margaret Graham moved to work with John Negroponte at the newly-created Department of National Intelligence. Kappes returned to the CIA in 2006 and served until 2010, despite his 2009 conviction in an Italian court of law for his participation in an extraordinary rendition there, and despite covering up the death of a detainee in Afghanistan.
I am pretty disgusted that Steve Kappes would have a role in deciding if someone intimately involved in covering up torture should be allowed to serve as the Director of Operations. And I say that with full knowledge that in the context of the times, Kappes and Margaret Graham were part of the “sane” faction fighting Porter Goss and his nutty staff.
The answer for John Brennan is ‘no.’ This unnamed woman may be remarkably capable and fully qualified for the job. Denying her the permanent position may ruffle a lot of feathers within the agency. But this is not acceptable:
In a fateful decision, the CIA set up a video camera at its secret prison in Thailand shortly after it opened in the months after the attacks. The agency recorded more than 90 tapes of often-brutal interrogations, footage that became increasingly worrisome to officials as the legal basis for the program began to crumble.
When the head of the Counterterrorism Center, Jose Rodriguez, was promoted to head of the clandestine service in 2004, he took the female officer along as his chief of staff. According to former officials, the two repeatedly sought permission to have the tapes destroyed but were denied.
In 2005, instructions to get rid of the recordings went out anyway. Former officials said the order carried just two names: Rodriguez and his chief of staff.
Ultimately, it’s George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who are responsible for the torture that took place. Unless they are punished, I am not interested in throwing a bunch of CIA officers in prison. But that doesn’t mean that those responsible for destroying evidence should be promoted.
“Unless they are punished, I am not interested in throwing a bunch of CIA officers in prison.”
I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that’s not how the justice system works. How about, ‘if there’s good reason to suspect that a bunch of CIA officers committed a crime, investigate. If a strong case is made, prosecute. If they’re convicted, throw them in prison.’ Isn’t that what happens to criminals?
And is there a better way to address the possible culpability of Bush and Cheney than by starting to investigate people lower on the torture totem pole? Isn’t that how cases against powerful people are constructed?
If the intent is to build a case against Bush and Cheney, then, yes, you’re right. That is not the intent.
You don’t want to charge Bush and Cheney though, and I’ll tell you why. Name me one president who wasn’t (isn’t for Obama) a war criminal? You can’t, because every last fucking one of them was. We’ve always tortured people, or trained others to do it and then been in the room while it happened. We’ve always killed civilians as well. Always, and every president since WW2 is up to their elbows in this as well.
Should Bush hang? Yeah. But so should Clinton, so should Obama, and so should the elder Bush if you want to get serious about it. And that’s why you don’t actually want people to be punished for this. Because once it starts, once we decide that we will prosecute administrations that commit crimes the nation will be over. Because all of them fucking do it. Because basic foreign policy and national security requires it.
Hell you can trace some of the same people in Afghanistan (and other nations just we don’t talk about them now) to Iraq, to Central America, back to Vietnam. And the same shit has been done in all these places. And some Nam guys were doing the same shit in Korea and before that we were doing the same shit in WW2.
And that’s the truth of it all. The issue with Iraq is Bush fucked up the war and let a lot of this shit become public. But the torture and the killings, sorry but that’s always been who we are and what we do. There’s nothing abnormal about it and it will never stop.
Since torture avails exactly nothing, basic foreign policy and national security do not require torture.
The purpose isn’t always information. Torture does reveal things, it’s just there are better ways. But more importantly torture spreads fear and fear helps control. This is why we torture, and that is why we won’t stop.
There is nothing nice about the US or any other first world nation. We do these things to exploit and hurt other people in other nations so we can have a better life. And that will keep going on, until everyone in the US decides they want a decidedly worse way of life, a much worse one, we will still keep doing this. Other nice nations, even nice European ones do this as well.
The difference is who gets caught. And while you may be willing to live with a lot less so this doesn’t happen, most people aren’t. And since most people aren’t you can’t stop it, and I can’t stop it. And thinking we can stop it or have any say in stopping it is extremely deluded.
Your quality of life, such as it is, and the only reason it’s not that of a peasant in China… is because of torture, murder, and exploitation. And to keep your life above that of a peasants, the government will torture, murder, and exploit, just as it always have. And there is nothing you can do to stop this.
You said it yourself, there are better ways. Ways that generate less blow back and improve life for Americans AND other peoples.
I’m not so naive as to think the US is a “nice” nation. But nothing about generating fear through torture makes me have a better life or ensures the continued existence of the country I happen to have been born into. Give me evidence that torture generates a significant boost to quality of life.
Thinking we have any say is exactly what is the most important thing, dear CIA plant. If you assume that attitude how can any changes be made at all? Even if we can’t stop it, fighting to do so is better than passive acceptance.
Geography and technology are what determine the economic potential. Desire and education is how that potential is harnessed. Restraining and co-opting elites are how that potential is spread around. That’s what generates and sustains quality of life.
You say that nasty stuff is necessary or the country will spiral into I don’t know, subsistence? But how? From what? I acknowledge that war potential plays a role in safety, but the potential remains just that.
As you said above about torture, there are better ways. Meeting needs both of agency and social for people will go far toward reducing the needs for these dark deeds. And the very act of not giving up is a step closer to making it happen.
has been of all ages. However I disagree with your line “There’s nothing abnormal about it …” To be clear, the abnormal has become the new normal in the land of exceptionalism. The British have prosecuted some criminal acts of their forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Argentinians have jailed many military leaders from their “dirty war.” The US was complicit, true. Same for Chili and several South American countries. The UN through its ICC has stepped up and prosecuted civilian and military leaders of the Balkan war and some leaders from African nations responsible for horrific acts of war crimes perpetrated against children and women.
The United States and Israel have clean hands of course in their wars of choice. At least the Israelis hold their political leaders accountable for financial malfeasance, election campaign fraud and acts of rape.
I do. Maybe you don’t, maybe a lot of liberals don’t, but I do. Any of them should be tried for war crimes.
The only leader I can think of who shouldn’t have been was Olof Palme. But then, he was offed and taken out of the picture. Can’t have a true socialist and anti-war, anti-imperialist leader in charge of a country in the Western world, even if it is dinky old Sweden.
Knowingly nominate a war criminal, and he is likely to consult war criminals about promoting other war criminals. This is not a difficult concept.
I think it is unsubstantiated that John Brennan had the kind of direct oversight and decision making responsibility to call him a war criminal. He’s part of the circle. He has a degree of culpability. But unless you are willing to paint with a broad brush, I don’t think you can prove from public information that he gave any orders or had any direct participation in these “enhanced” interrogations. I called for his role to be cleared up before anyone voted on him confirmation, and that wasn’t done.
Considering Bush and Cheney are gone and the CIA is still running rampant, I am more interested in tossing CIA officers in prison. Hell I am more interested in dissolving the CIA.
Not dissolving, restructuring. A major country needs an intelligence agency.
I agree. Secrets are the price we pay for civilization, but the CIA is so broken I think an entirely new thing should be created.
I’ll buy that.
Ultimately, it’s George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who are responsible for the torture that took place. Unless they are punished, I am not interested in throwing a bunch of CIA officers in prison. But that doesn’t mean that those responsible for destroying evidence should be promoted.
I agree on both points. We really did have war criminals and torturers at the very top of the Bush-Cheney government, and the list of those who should be indicted easily includes them, Rumsfeld, David Addington and legal lick-spittles John Yoo and Jay Bybee, who provided legal cover for the pro-torture conspiracy. Of course, Bybee was rewarded with a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judgeship, so what’s a few CIA torture cover-up conspirator appointments among friends?
It will take this country at least as long to own up to these crimes as it did to admit to grievous deprivations of liberty suffered by Japanese-American citizens during WWII. Which means, not during my lifetime.
The CIA and the rest of the military-industrial complex have not been under the direction of the President since JFK was assassinated in 1963. Some Presidents have been in absolute agreement with the torture and drug-smuggling (read The Politics of Heroin In Southeast Asia for drugs and read The Phoenix Program by Valentine to see what torture techniques were in vogue back in the 60s), some have worked with them, other Presidents have gone along. A few have tried to rein them in and have been dealt with.
Because nothing was done about the Phoenix Program or the drug-smuggling it has continued for fifty years.
We had a coup. There are reasons why there are coups:
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/25/incomes_of_bottom_90_percent_grew_59_in_40_years/