by Larry C. Johnson
Dana Priest’s Wednesday scoop in the Washington Post that the CIA has several secret prisons holding suspected terrorists in “friendly” nations, including some in the former Soviet Union and East Bloc, has folks legitimately outraged and wanting to ask tough questions. Based on preliminary checks I’ve made with folks who “know”, the story is solid. What fascinates me in light of the Libby indictment, however, is who tipped her off? There are two likely scenarios:
Scenario One — Priest was tipped by CIA personnel, most likely recently retired, who think Porter Goss is being far too accommodating of President Bush and Don Rumsfeld. The CIA wants to play tough with terrorists, but does not want to stray into the arena where the Agency can be accused of massive human rights violations. CIA officers who I know personally, who have been on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, are uniformly opposed to torture and alarmed by the push into the twilight zone beyond the Geneva Conventions. Yet, there are some CIA officers who are carrying out these orders without asking too many questions. The few remaining Grey beards who have been through previous scandals (Does the Church Committee ring a bell?) are legitimately worried that the acts committed in the name of fighting the war on terrorism will be used to further discredit what is left of the CIA. In other words, this was a preemptive strike by CIA officers not happy with Goss who want to put the Director on the defensive and stop his ongoing effort to politicize the Directorate of Operations.
Scenario Two — Priest was tipped by NSC insiders who, angered over the Libby affair and paranoid that the CIA is trying to weaken the Bush Presidency, decided to drive a stake in the heart of the CIA. With the focus on the CIA trying to fend off Congressional investigators there is a chance that the focus on the outing of CIA officer Valerie Wilson will shift to the misdeeds of the CIA clandestine service.
My money is on Scenario One, but that is just an opinion. Regardless of who leaked this information the story is terrible news for the CIA. It conjures up once again the image of a rogue elephant run amuck. It may even ensnare the current head of the State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism, Hank Crumpton, who was working in the Counter Terrorism Center at CIA when these “prisons” were set up. That, in my opinion, would be awful because the early word on Crumpton is that he is the best talent the S/CT shop has had in many years and is making significant strides in trying to coordinate the U.S. Government’s chaotic and disjointed counter terrorism effort. Just some initial thoughts.
……………………………………………………..
Larry C. Johnson is CEO and co-founder of BERG Associates, LLC, an international business-consulting firm that helps corporations and governments manage threats posed by terrorism and money laundering. Mr. Johnson, who worked previously with the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism (as a Deputy Director), is a recognized expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, crisis and risk management. Mr. Johnson has analyzed terrorist incidents for a variety of media including the Jim Lehrer News Hour, National Public Radio, ABC’s Nightline, NBC’s Today Show, the New York Times, CNN, Fox News, and the BBC. Mr. Johnson has authored several articles for publications, including Security Management Magazine, the New York Times, and The Los Angeles Times. He has lectured on terrorism and aviation security around the world. Further bio details.
Personal Blog: No Quarter || Bio
Recommended Book List || More BoomanTribune Posts
Cross-posted at EuroTrib.com.
but will it really reflect poorly on the CIA knowing Goss is bush’s man?
Begging Dana Priest’s pardon, but it was RUMORED that this sh*t was going on–I think Hersh even said so–a couple of years ago. And now the CIA guys who loathe Bush are tipping their hands to confirm it…?
Maybe they know something I don’t. But Goss’ reign of terror on the spooks is making them shout ‘payback time.’
The State Department won’t admit to these secret hellholes, but it’s still defending Bushco’s lawlessness:
“unlawful belligerence”?
You deal with them with the laws you have – not the ones you make up to cover your ass, McCormack.
Is there a website somewhere I can go to find out the list of what qualifies as “lawful belligerence”?
I really feel it to be imperative to my general health and well being as I have been known to engage in belligerence from time to time… although I didn’t know it was regulated by the US when I engaged in said belligerence… I’ve said to much… I plead the Fifth.
btw, disclaimer to any who did not recognize the snark… it was snark. 😉
Huh. Who runs the State Dept. these days?
Larry,
I have a serious question that you might be able to answer. It’s been nagging at me for a while.
As we dig into available information from various news reports and blogs, where do we draw the line in respect for what some claim might damage national security? Many of us feel that the Bush administration hyper-secrecy is damaging in many ways but how do we gauge the damage uncovering the truth might do?
If elected/appointed officials are betraying any oaths of duty they assume by exploiting their position for personal gain is it likely to also be a sincere security interest? On occasion I find some obscure connections that don’t seem to be common knowledge. I’m sure this is not unique to me as this is what’s driving the genuine campaign for integrity in government.
I never go beyond normal resources available on the internet so it shouldn’t have any special sensitivity. Having said that, I remember Ashcroft wanting to retroactively classify all information concerning Sibel Edmonds that had been on the internet for months. I believe Ashcroft was the higher risk to national security.
Anyway, if you can find a question in all of that I’d appreciate any insight you could offer.
First, thank you for your participation and insight here. It helps in trying to understand some very complex and crucial issues we’re facing.
Could it be the long known public claims of victims of this extraordinary rendition are finally being verified?
Canada recently released a report that helped substantiate the claims of Maher Arar, who was rendered to Syria by Ashcroft. He was on a watchlist with no other connection to terrorism than having worked at the same place the brother of a suspect worked. He was a Candian citizen, born in Syria but his family moved when he was a teenager.
During his 10 month incarceration in Syria he was subjected to beatings and torture until he confessed to something he never did, just to stop the torture. He was eventually released without being charged and was never charged in Canada. He filed suit against John Ashcroft and I don’t even want to guess the prosecutor who tried to deny him a trial of any sort on the claim of national security. I have a gut feeling it was Fitzgerald and they would suck.
We should offer Addington, Gonzales and those who advocate the option of torture to endure an incarceration in one of these countries for an indefinite period of time. If they still advocate the practice then it’s worth consideration.
I don’t think it’s any great revelation. Most of this has been in reports but have generally been met with claims of disbelief. “…the president has made it clear we don’t do torture…”
There have been reports of several CIA agents having warrants for their arrest in Italy for kidnapping a citizen on Italian soil without due process or notification. That was reported to be linked to the same secret detentions.
The private jet is said to sport the Red Sox logo many times it was spotted.
All I can do is speculate.
I commented on this topic as a question, just this A.M. on a Kos open thread. My personal suspicion in pure ignorance was that White House forces got the info out to discredit the CIA.
I think we’ve got us a 2nd government and I think it can’t be gotten rid of.
Wonderful post. Just wanted to note that Dana Priest is a he and not a she.
Dude. Smart women are not ugly guys. Welcome home.
That might be Dana Millbank you’re thinking of, I think.
Please, forgive my middle of the night delirium. Dana Milbank and Dana Priest share a first name but not a last name and certainly not a gender.
Couldn’t this have been leaked by someone “in the know” in the host country? Certainly there must be many there who disagree with being tools of the Bush group.
Also, there seem to be a heck of a lot of CIA guys who DON’T have a problem with pushing the envelope regarding torture. Many folkd seem to have “died” in CIA custody.
Thanks for insight. Good to know that ethical CIA people, like yourself, exist. And maintain the ability to question unlawful orders.
Thanks so much for this – it really confirms my initial reaction. It seemed clear to me that “leaking” this information was more fodder in the battle between the White House and the CIA. But it wasn’t clear which side was doing the leaking. While possibly reflecting badly on the CIA, most people that don’t pay much attention to the news will just hear this as another reason to distrust the administration and their WOT.