The Justice Department investigation into CIA torture allegations may have already jeopardized American intelligence capabilities, seven former CIA directors told President Obama. In a letter, the spy chiefs urge him to reverse Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to re-review case files of a dozen interrogations for possible criminal prosecution. Letter to President Obama from Former DCIs and DCIAs (2).pdf
"Not only will some members of the intelligence community be subjected to costly financial and other burdens from what amounts to endless criminal investigations, but this approach will seriously damage the willingness of many other intelligence officers to take risks to protect the country," the directors write. "In our judgment such risk-taking is vital to success in the long and difficult fight against the terrorists who continue to threaten us."
The letter also criticizes the disclosure of information about interrogation methodology. In what amounts to a lecture of sorts, the directors write that "[s]uccess in intelligence often depends on surprise and deception and on creating uncertainty in the mind of an enemy." The administration must be mindful, they write, that public disclosure about past intelligence operations "can only help Al Qaeda elude U.S. intelligence and plan future operations."
Finally, they warn that U.S. intelligence liaison relationships with other countries is in jeopardy because these countries worry that the U.S. can't keep secrets -- and secrecy is often a prerequisite for intelligence sharing.
"As a result of the zeal on the part of some to uncover every action taken in the post-9/11 period, many countries may decide that they can no longer safely share intelligence or cooperate with us on future counter-terrorist operations. They simply cannot rely on our promises of secrecy," the authors write.
The authors provided no specifics to back up their contentions.
The signees include every living CIA director from 1973 to the present, with the exception of Robert Gates, who is now the Secretary of Defense and former President George H.W. Bush. The first signee, Robert A. Schlesinger, presided over the release of the so-called "Family Jewels," which
implicated his agency in a massive, illegal domestic wiretapping operation. Three of the directors -- Porter Goss, Michael Hayden and George Tenet -- were directly responsible for authorizing and overseeing the CIA's interrogation program, which was known inside the agency as "GST."
"Director Panetta appreciates the President's strong support
for the men and women of the CIA. His focus, and that of the agency as a whole,
is on the national security challenges of today and tomorrow," said Paul Gimigliano, the CIA's spokesman, in a statement. "The Director has
stood up for those who followed legal guidance on interrogation, and he will
continue to do so. The CIA is cooperating with the official reviews now in
progress, in part to see that they move as expeditiously as possible. The goal
is to ensure that current agency operations--on which the safety of our country
depends--center on protecting the nation."
"but this approach will seriously damage the willingness of many other intelligence officers to take risks to protect the country," the directors write."
Translation: "OMG!!!! It would be so hard to find new torturers and vicious skull-crackers if any of the current ones are inconvenienced in any way!"
Since WHEN torturing and killing people became similar to 'patriotism', 'love of freedom' or 'defending the country'?"
On the concerns about the damage this would do to the CIA let me quote members of the prior administration. "So What?" The CIA has never done anything good for this country, we could live quite well without them.
"this approach will seriously damage the willingness of many other intelligence officers to take risks to protect the country," the directors write. "In our judgment such risk-taking is vital to success in the long and difficult fight against the terrorists who continue to threaten us."
If there are no potential negative consequences, there is no risk. What risk were they taking? It seems like the risk was that they'd be prosecuted for criminal activity. The former directors appear to be saying that "CIA agents will be less willing to knowingly break the law if they face potential punishment for knowingly breaking the law, and we believe that pre-meditated breaking of the law is vital to success in the fight against terror."
As has been pointed out in this blog, Holder would probably have been able (and more than willing) to avoid taking action if there wasn't overwhelming evidence of criminal activity already in the public domain. The position of the former directors is that the CIA is, has been, and always must be above the law.
It really makes you wonder how pervasive illegal activity within the agency has actually been over the last 40 years.
"Take risks"? Is it me, but doesn't that seem to specifically reference the 'risk' of prosecution should your actions be uncovered? Moreover, doesn't the destruction of the videotape record of the interrogations support the implicit understanding among the perpetrators (is it too early to call them that? I mean, in anticipation of 'perp walks' to come) that their actions were in fact beyond what they had been authorized to do? If you genuinely believe what you did was NOT criminal, don't you keep the tapes to prove your innocence?
It has already been established that no "authorization" to commit war crimes exists. Orders to commit acts that may be contrued as war crimes are illegal, and to be refused. Likewise it has already been established that issuing orders (or "authorizations") to commit war crimes, is in itself, a war crime. Every statement from everyone involved is no more than than a self serving attempt to escape criminal penalty. Eichmann never threw a single Jew in an oven, but his guilt is not in doubt. Bet some folks are looking for an activist judge right about now....
I'm sorry, but if the intelligence officers can't take orders.....then they shouldn't be there in the first place. Any of them who no longer will be willing to interrogate a witness without using torture should be put in prison anyhow. And as far as the "Not only will some members of the intelligence community be subjected to costly financial and other burdens from what amounts to endless criminal investigations,..."---Well, we shouldn't prosecute them because it might cost them too much money? I would like to see someone else try that rationale in court. "Sorry Judge, but you can't prosecute me, because with the court dates, I would be out of work for several days and could be fired from my job, miss my mortgage payment, etc." I don't think that would work for anyone else....why should it work for CIA officials? I'm sorry, but the criminal investigations are for those that went outside what was covered as legal by the Bush Administration...in other words, those that went beyond shady into full blown illegality. Why should CIA personnel be exempt from the law? Because it might hurt their morale? Hey, getting busted for speeding hurts my morale...I don't see the state cops waving me with a warning.....much less if I were to damn near kill someone.
This approach will seriously damage the willingness of many other intelligence officers to take risks to protect the country.
Fuck that. No one in any job should be unafraid to take risks--didn't we just see the results for the financial market of "if it works I get millions, if it fails the government bails me out, so I'll do anything?" This isn't good in any field.
"Taking risks" could cover absolutely anything a CIA officer got the urge to do. Crush someone's testicles? Hey, if he'd actually known where a ticking bomb was, it could have saved lives. You can't second-guess someone like that.
cgallaway's speeding ticket analogy, too.
This is downright scary.
Remember that the Obama administration is not investigating the torture methods described in OLC memos and signed off on by the Bush administration - waterboarding, stress positions, use of extreme heat and cold, confinement in small spaces. They are only investigating individual CIA members who went beyond these methods into territory even the Bush administration regarded as illegal.
Now, the Obama administration has already said publicly that they are not going to use any of these methods any more. Yet the CIA still considers in terribly dangerous to investigate even individual agents who went past what the Bush Administration permitted. To protest against an investigation - not on the basis that nothing worth investigating happened, but on the basis that it would damage the CIA - points to there being a lot more that we don't know, and a lot more the CIA is covering up.
These people are responsible for many of the worst atrocities in modern American history, including overthrow of governments, assassination of civilians, testing drugs on the American population, training foreign armies and police in torture techniques that make anything America has done since 9/11 pale in comparison, and training foreign agents in terrorism. And they are compulsively and obsessively secretive. If there is one US government organization that needs to be abolished, this is it.
Let's not be too hypocritical about the CIA.
If the US does not want to allow torture allowed as part of its methods, that's good. Torture is evil and is against everything we stand for as a nation.
However, Holder is only looking at prosecuting CIA employees whose actions went past the EIT (torture) guidelines issued by the Justice Department. This is just plain and ordinary scapegoating for as we know the Obama administration will not start prosecuting Cheney or any CIA management.
Remember, if there is another successful terrorist atrocity against citizens of the US, this debate will reopen.
Those who are morally self righteous about the CIA, never put themselves in any position to be held accountable for US security.
Torture is wrong at every level, but scapegoating is not justice.