The Darkest Of The Dark Sides

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Keith Olbermann talks with Jane Mayer in this clip about the release of the CIA IG report and the preliminary investigation into some of the worst practices of the torture regime. She talks about how the IG report reads like "a crime scene," foregrounding the idea that the architects of the policy at CIA were warned in this 2004 report and repeatedly thereafter that their agency would be in deep legal trouble for continuing these actions, and yet they kept justifying them and/or actually engaging in them for years afterward. Nobody took the warnings seriously, knowing both the makeup of the Justice Department and the Presidency at that time, and perhaps banking on how Washington would view these efforts, as part of the past and best kept their, given the Establishment culpability for torture.

Here's just a few of the facts of what CIA interrogators did in our name, just the ones that come from this IG report, as masterfully summarized by Glenn Greenwald:

• Threats of execution, using semi-automatic handguns and power drills
• Threats to kill detainee and his children
• Threats to rape detainee's wife and children in front of him
• Restricting the detainee's carotid artery
• Hitting detainee with the butt end of a rifle
• Blowing smoke in detainee's face for five minutes
• Multiple instances of waterboarding detainees, of the type we prosecuted Japanese war criminals for using:
• Hanging detainee by their arms until interrogators thought their shoulders might be dislocated
• stepping on detainee's ankle shackles to cause severe bruising and pain
• choking detainee until they pass out
• dousing detainee with water on cold concrete floors in cold temperatures to induce hypothermia
• killing detainees through torture techniques, whether accidental or not
• putting detainee in a diaper for days at a time to live in their own filth

On that last point, Digby notes that this could have been used in tandem with another technique we know about, the use of forced enemas, a particularly degrading technique, part and parcel of the humiliations heaped on prisoners that were psycho-sexual in nature. A lot of these stem from misreadings of books like Raphael Patai's "The Arab Mind," which presumed a host of dubious generalizations about Muslims and their predispositions, all of it willingly lapped up by neoconservatives willing to believe that their opponents were somehow subhuman. As if anyone would react favorably to being made to live in their own shit. These stereotypical projections that manifested themselves in essentially an allowance for torturing brown-skinned people have dangerous and deadly repercussions.

But whatever Patai's intentions, the kind of thinking he engaged in does have real-world consequences, ones that reverberate far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib. In their recent book "Occidentalism" (Penguin), Ian Buruma and Avishai Margalit argue that a reciprocal negative stereotype of the West has arisen in the Arab world, one that holds that the West is licentious, amoral, overly sexualized, aggressive, and engaged in a crusade against Islam. Buruma and Margalit trace this stereotype back to thinkers of the Western counter-Enlightenment, but events like the abuse at Abu Ghraib, in which soldiers reportedly not only raped prisoners but forced them to eat pork and drink alcohol, suggest that an Occidentalist worldview has sources much closer at hand, in the actual experience of domination.

In the wake of the Iraq war, mutually reinforcing Occidentalist and Orientalist stereotypes have contributed immeasurably to the fear and apprehension that divides Islam and the West. It should be observed that the human rights violations that took place in Abu Ghraib would have been no less horrific had they taken place in Madison, Wis. But the explosiveness of the situation makes them far more dangerous as we enter an era where each side defines the other only by its worst excesses. Rather than plumbing some mythical "Arab mind," we should affirm the shared humanity that transcends our differences and binds us all together.

Because of the reliance on stereotypes, the lack of factual information and the pressure from the top to come up with any information in the early post-9/11 period, this all led to "unauthorized, improvised, inhumane and undocumented" being used repeatedly and in violation of multiple federal laws and international conventions. None of them made Americans safer, in fact many of them probably made the country less safe, and all of them were decidedly illegal, debasing and severely damaging to our moral capability. We have made a mockery of the presumption that in America, the law is king. Now a generation of torture-loving conservatives believe that the ends justify any means, up to and including murder.

They don't. And as soon as you begin to have an argument over torture's effectiveness, the argument is immediately lost. But it's worth noting that Dick Cheney, the Great Dissembler, claimed for months that documents would show the how torture worked in saving lives, and yet, while those documents were released along with the IG report, as Mayer says none of the information contained in them prove Cheney's hypothesis.

OLBERMANN: What about Mr. Cheney's assessment that there would be documents that prove that torture worked where traditional and legal interrogation did not or would not. Is there anything in those documents that were released today that supports that contention?

MAYER: Well, the documents that I've seen, and maybe I'm missing something, but so far, I am amazed at how little support there is for the things that Vice President Cheney has been saying. There is nothing but a mass of claims that they got information from this individual and that individual, many from KSM, who apparently has been the greatest fount of information for them, but there's absolutely nothing saying that they had to beat them to get this information. In fact, as anybody knows who knows anything about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he was dying to tell the world, when he was interviewed by Al Jazeera before he was in US custody, about everything he knew and everything he did. He was proud of his role as the mastermind of 9/11. He loves to talk about it. So there's no evidence that I see in this that these things were necessary. I spoke to someone at the CIA who was an advisor to them who conceded to me that "We could have gotten the same information from tea and crumpets."

OLBERMANN: Or buying a copy of the Al Jazeera interview.

The Cheney documents were deliberately created at the time to rebut both this CIA Inspector General report recommending prosecutions, and the heat put on by Congress about allegations of torture. They were actually conceived to deceive people into believing that torture works, an irrelevant point at best. And yet these same memos do not support Cheney's claims. They say that certain individuals gave up information, but only after questioned through traditional means, which was happening contemporaneously to the torture. It is impossible to say definitively, therefore, which information came as a result of what techniques.

And yet, not only has traditional media largely ignored the fact that the documents do not support Cheney's claims (which were given tons of media attention previously), but an extremely carefully worded statement by Cheney, stating that "The documents released Monday clearly demonstrate that the individuals subjected to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques provided the bulk of intelligence we gained about al Qaeda" - which says nothing of WHAT techniques caused this intelligence to be gleaned - has been taken completely at face value by reporters, in particular CNN, which ran Cheney's comments as facts:

Cheney says documents show interrogations prevented attacks

Former Vice President Dick Cheney says documents released Monday support his view that harsh interrogation techniques used on terrorism suspects prevented attacks and yielded crucial information about al Qaeda.

A simple read of the documents shows this to be completely untrue. Jane Mayer, as expert a journalist on this subject as anyone, calls them unsupportable. But too many reporters just write down these things and run with them, the facts be damned. It's part of a disturbing pattern, as Digby says:

If you have followed the torture revelations over the years, you can't help but be just a tad disillusioned by the fact that the mainstream media acts over and over again as if they were born yesterday and each time these stories are validated it's as if it's the first time they've heard it.

We already know they tortured. We know that DOJ bureaucrats illegally approved the torture on Dick Cheney's request and we know that a bunch of unprofessional, untrained interrogators complied and then went beyond even what was approved. We know that innocent people were tortured and we know that prisoners were killed. We've known all this for a long time. The question is not what happened, it's whether anyone will be held accountable for it.

On that point, here's Jane Mayer talking about the Durham investigation, actually hopeful about what it may find:

MAYER: Well, my guess is that if they actually open some kind of serious investigation, and Durham is said to be a very serious prosecutor, that even if they start at the very bottom, it's going to keep leading up and up through the chain of command. Because, if nothing else, if they actually bring charges against anybody at the CIA who was at the bottom of the food chain, the first thing that person's going to do is say "I was authorized, let me tell you what my orders were." So they've begun a process that could lead to the top.

OLBERMANN: Well, if it works along the Archibald Cox lines, as I analogized last week, where they've supposedly circumscribed it, but people want to get out from the scapegoat for the whole operation, then I think your assessment is correct.

We know that none of the torture here happened by happenstance, but through a directed policy emanating from the top. Instead of prosecuting "bad apples" who were young MPs on the night shift in Baghdad, we're talking about mid-level career CIA. They aren't dupes, and they know how to shift the attention up the chain of command. I don't think these interrogators will live with being the scapegoats. It may take some time, but we really could see some legitimate accountability here. And I hope so - because otherwise this will remain a black mark that can never wash out.

The Incredible Shrinking Investigation

Marcy Wheeler doesn't think John Durham has the juice to effectively probe the Bush torture regime:

As I said in my panel at Netroots Nation, we'll know a lot about whether Holder intends to do a real investigation, or just a whitewash investigating the Lynndie Englands, by the stature of the prosecutor he names. And while Durham is already neck deep in the investigation of torture on the torture tapes, he doesn't necessarily have the stature to go after--say--Jim Haynes and John Rizzo for setting up the torture regime.

I guess Holder wasn't that serious about investigating torture after all.

The White House has now weighed in (though with the Press Secretary's office attached, not the President) praising Holder for limiting the scope of the investigation.

The President has said repeatedly that he wants to look forward, not back, and the President agrees with the Attorney General that those who acted in good faith and within the scope of legal guidance should not be prosecuted. Ultimately, determinations about whether someone broke the law are made independently by the Attorney General.

Doesn't seem like much will be gained from this investigation, after all. It'll look good in the papers, though.

By the way, the IG report is out, along with the "Cheney documents," the ones he claim vindicate the use of torture. Of course, the CIA used torture techniques in tandem with other, more traditional interrogation tactics, so it's really impossible to answer Cheney's question, which I find irrelevant anyway, because torture is torture.

As for the IG report, Spencer Ackerman and Marcy Wheeler are documenting the atrocities. What we know so far: the CIA lied to Bybee and Yoo so they could get approval for torture; they shut off the cameras for 21 hours during a waterboarding interrogation; and the torturers were engaging in techniques before being given the verbal OK by higher-ups. That's just a taste.

Special Prosecutor

WaPo sez:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has decided to appoint a prosecutor to examine nearly a dozen cases in which CIA interrogators and contractors may have violated anti-torture laws and other statutes when they allegedly threatened terrorism suspects, according to two sources familiar with the move.

Holder is poised to name John Durham, a career Justice Department prosecutor from Connecticut, to lead the inquiry, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the process is not complete.

Durham's mandate, the sources added, will be relatively narrow: to look at whether there is enough evidence to launch a full-scale criminal investigation of current and former CIA personnel who may have broken the law in their dealings with detainees. Many of the harshest CIA interrogation techniques have not been employed against terrorism suspects for four years or more.

Durham's been handling the investigation over the destruction of the torture tapes, which hasn't yielded much information to date. Obama is trying to stay as far away from this as possible; his spokesman's statement is "The White House supports the attorney general making the decisions on who gets prosecuted and investigated."

The narrowness of this investigation, focused on only the CIA personnel who colored outside the lines set down by moral lepers John Yoo and Jay Bybee, is reprehensible. If it only extends that far, we're seeing a replay of the Abu Ghraib investigation which sent Lynndie England to jail but let those who authorized and directed the abuse free with nary a warning. Basically, Holder is following the Office of Professional Responsibility report, which recommended that they reopen about a dozen prisoner-abuse cases, some of which include murders. I hold no brief for the CIA personnel who engaged in this, but confining the mandate to the low men and women on the totem pole will do nothing to chill the potential for such abuse to happen again. If any old lackey in the Office of Legal Counsel can write up an opinion essentially validating torture, and they become de facto legal as long as those using the guidelines follow them generally, we don't really have a rule of law anymore. And future Presidents will easily discern the loophole in the system.

However, just the possibility of prosecuting individuals who did, after all, break the law, is enough for establishmentarians like Leon Panetta to reportedly threaten resignation. And the Durham investigation, in the end, is up to John Durham. He can be given a mandate, but Eric Holder has said in the past that he cannot circumscribe an investigation so much as to effectively immunize certain individuals. If the small fish flip, Durham, like any prosecutor, can find out who authorized their actions. And that can lead to the Bush White House.

I think Panetta, and the CIA in general, are probably more angered by the Obama Administration taking some of their responsibilities away, like giving the White House oversight through the National Security Council over the "High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group." (That task force, by the way, unanimously determined that the Army Field Manual shall be the ultimate parameter when questioning suspects.) This is probably more of a turf war than anything.

But maybe, just maybe, CIA - particularly its Bush-era holdovers - know that an investigation, once started, is hard to stop or rein in.

We still have the CIA Inspector General report coming today as well.

...First bit of new news from the IG report (haven't seen the report online anywhere yet):

A newly declassified CIA report says interrogators threatened to kill the children of a Sept. 11 suspect.

The document, released Monday by the Justice Department, says one interrogator said a colleague had told Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that if any other attacks happened in the United States, "We're going to kill your children."

Another interrogator allegedly tried to convince a different terror suspect detainee that his mother would be sexually assaulted in front of him - though the interrogator in question denied making such a threat.

I don't know if such a threat went "above and beyond" the Yoo-Bybee memos, so I'm glad we're saving investigations for only the really bad stuff.

...I now have Atty. Gen. Holder's statement. I think it pretty much speaks for itself. Note that it says nothing about those who authorized detainee abuse, which also possibly means that they are not shielded from review. And realize, of course, that even this hedged, incomplete investigation is likely to launch the shitstorm to end all shitstorms from the Village:

“The Office of Professional Responsibility has now submitted to me its report regarding the Office of Legal Counsel memoranda related to so-called enhanced interrogation techniques. I hope to be able to make as much of that report available as possible after it undergoes a declassification review and other steps. Among other findings, the report recommends that the Department reexamine previous decisions to decline prosecution in several cases related to the interrogation of certain detainees.

“I have reviewed the OPR report in depth. Moreover, I have closely examined the full, still-classified version of the 2004 CIA Inspector General’s report, as well as other relevant information available to the Department. As a result of my analysis of all of this material, I have concluded that the information known to me warrants opening a preliminary review into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations. The Department regularly uses preliminary reviews to gather information to determine whether there is sufficient predication to warrant a full investigation of a matter. I want to emphasize that neither the opening of a preliminary review nor, if evidence warrants it, the commencement of a full investigation, means that charges will necessarily follow.

“Assistant United States Attorney John Durham was appointed in 2008 by then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate the destruction of CIA videotapes of detainee interrogations. During the course of that investigation, Mr. Durham has gained great familiarity with much of the information that is relevant to the matter at hand. Accordingly, I have decided to expand his mandate to encompass this related review. Mr. Durham, who is a career prosecutor with the Department of Justice and who has assembled a strong investigative team of experienced professionals, will recommend to me whether there is sufficient predication for a full investigation into whether the law was violated in connection with the interrogation of certain detainees.

“There are those who will use my decision to open a preliminary review as a means of broadly criticizing the work of our nation’s intelligence community. I could not disagree more with that view. The men and women in our intelligence community perform an incredibly important service to our nation, and they often do so under difficult and dangerous circumstances. They deserve our respect and gratitude for the work they do. Further, they need to be protected from legal jeopardy when they act in good faith and within the scope of legal guidance. That is why I have made it clear in the past that the Department of Justice will not prosecute anyone who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the interrogation of detainees. I want to reiterate that point today, and to underscore the fact that this preliminary review will not focus on those individuals.

“I share the President’s conviction that as a nation, we must, to the extent possible, look forward and not backward when it comes to issues such as these. While this Department will follow its obligation to take this preliminary step to examine possible violations of law, we will not allow our important work of keeping the American people safe to be sidetracked.

“I fully realize that my decision to commence this preliminary review will be controversial. As Attorney General, my duty is to examine the facts and to follow the law. In this case, given all of the information currently available, it is clear to me that this review is the only responsible course of action for me to take.”

...Reps. Conyers and Nadler:

“I applaud the Attorney General’s decision to appoint a special US Attorney to review the interrogation abuse cases that were rejected for prosecution by George Bush’s Justice Department,” said Conyers. “The Obama Administration also deserves praise for the release of the 2004 CIA Inspector General report as well as related DOJ memos. These materials are truly disturbing, including the CIA’s basic conclusion that ‘unauthorized, improvised, inhumane, and undocumented detention and interrogation techniques were used’ in its program. Reading about misdeeds such as threats to kill a detainees’ children or the staging of mock executions leaves us appalled.

“Today’s release -- even of these still heavily redacted materials -- is thus an important step toward restoring the rule of law in this country, and rebuilding our credibility around the world. But much more remains to be done. The gruesome acts described in today’s report did not happen in a vacuum. It would not be fair or just for frontline personnel to be held accountable while the policymakers and lawyers escape scrutiny after creating and approving conditions where such abuses were all but inevitable to occur.

“I have long believed that Department rules require a special counsel to review the entire interrogation program to determine if any crimes were committed. An independent and bipartisan commission should also be convened to evaluate the broader issues raised by the Bush Administration’s brutal torture program.”

“The CIA Inspector General’s report on interrogation practices under the Bush administration is a disturbing record of abuse that details why this must never happen again and why action on the part of the Justice Department is essential,” said Nadler. “Today’s news that the Attorney General has listened to our many requests and is poised to appoint a special counsel is very much welcome. I applaud the Attorney General for this first step. But, we must go further. As I have said for many months, it is vital that this special counsel be given a broad mandate to investigate these abuses, to follow the evidence where it leads, and to prosecute where warranted. This must be a robust mission to gather any and all evidence without predetermination of where it may lead. Seeking out only the low-level actors in a conspiracy to torture detainees will bring neither justice nor restored standing to our nation.”

A Hiccup At The CIA?

I'm still not convinced that any prosecutor who remains under the chain of command of George Bush's Justice Department is going to be able to carry out a legitimate investigation, no matter how tough and nonpartisan John Durham is. In addition, the fact that the sole focus of the investigation is the destruction of the torture tapes, and not what was on them, seems to be to presage something less than a legitimate probe. But that's not the way it's being received at Langley:

“A lot of people are worried,” says one former CIA official, who asked not to be identified talking about sensitive matters. “Whenever you have the bureau running around the building, it’s going to turn up some heads. This could turn into a witch hunt.” Justice officials say Durham was assigned to investigate the 2005 decision to destroy the tapes—not the activities recorded on them, including the use of waterboarding on Al Qaeda suspects. But at this point, Durham has no formal mandate on the probe's scope, giving him the freedom to expand it if he chooses. "We're going to follow this wherever it leads," says one Justice official, who asked not to be identified discussing an ongoing probe.

One key figure, Jose Rodriguez, the former CIA chief of clandestine services who gave the order to destroy the videotapes, has retained Robert Bennett, a renowned defense lawyer who represented Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Another potential witness, George Tenet, who was CIA director when the tapes were made, will be represented by former FBI general counsel Howard Shapiro. Roy Krieger, a Washington lawyer who has represented about 100 CIA employees, says that two agency officers have approached him about representation, though neither has retained him yet.

I think the CIA is worried for a different reason. The Bushies have been all too ready to lay all of their problems at the feet of the intelligence community. They twisted the intel on Iraq, and when it turned out to be wrong, blamed the CIA for bad intel. In addition there have been the evidence that CIA agents are at war with Cheney because they aren't willing to go into the abyss toward endless war around the globe. As long as this inquiry is limited to the destruction of the tapes, the DoJ, under the firm gaze of Cheney, can use this investigation to get back at a lot of political enemies at Langley, while also shielding Fourthbranch from his ultimate role in the entire mess:

But with anything related to torture, it's pretty clear the CIA took its orders from Cheney -- via Addington. And how plausible is it that, in his exchanges with the CIA, Addington advised against the tapes' destruction? Or that the CIA would have done it if he had told them not to? Isn't it more likely that he supported the idea, either overtly or with a nod and a wink?

So one has to wonder what will happen if Addington is hauled in front of a grand jury to testify not just about his relevant conversations with the CIA, but about his conversations with Cheney.

"Did you, Mr. Addington, indicate in any way to the CIA that destroying the tapes would be acceptable, or even preferable? Did you do so based on instructions from your boss, the vice president?"

Wouldn't it be interesting to hear Addington answer those questions under oath?

Not likely to happen as long as anyone under the thumb of the executive branch is doing the investigating. But the intelligence agents have reason to be worried. Just ask Mary McCarthy.

Well, It Certainly Sounds Like An Independent Investigation

Michael Mukasey taps a career prosecutor to investigate the destruction of the torture tapes:

The CIA acknowledged last month that it destroyed videos of officers using tough interrogation methods while questioning two al-Qaida suspects. The acknowledgment sparked a congressional inquiry and a preliminary investigation by Justice.

"The Department's National Security Division has recommended, and I have concluded, that there is a basis for initiating a criminal investigation of this matter, and I have taken steps to begin that investigation," Mukasey said in a statement released Wednesday.

Mukasey named John Durham, a federal prosecutor in Connecticut, to oversee the case.

Durham apparently went up against the FBI and sent a bunch of public officials in Connecticut to prison, so he's not afraid of taking on the government. He's basically acting as the US Attorney for eastern Virginia because that USA, who would normally have jurisdiction over the CIA, recused himself. And the head of the CIA, Michael Hayden, has also recused himself, along with John Helgerson, the CIA Inspector General.

This has all the earmarks of a legitimate independent investigation, but with the Bush Administration nothing is assured.

UPDATE: It's interesting that this is coming out on a day when 9/11 Commission co-chairs Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton reiterated in the New York Times that the CIA stonewalled their investigation and lied to their commission.

UPDATE II: Conyers seems unhappy, wanted a special counsel and thinks the scope of the investigation is too limited. I have to agree to an extent that the Justice Department has defaulted on its ability to independently investigate the White House. So the Congress should engage in a parallel probe.