Blogs and Stories
Is Leon Panetta Covering Up Torture?
Molly Riley / Reuters
Why doesn’t Leon Panetta want the CIA investigated or prosecuted for torture allegations? Maybe because some of the men implicated, John Sifton reports, are the ones advising him.
On Monday night the confidential report of the International Committee of the Red Cross on the CIA’s secret detention and interrogation program was published on the website of the New York Review of Books. The report confirms previous allegations about CIA abuses against detainees. Unlike earlier reporting, however, the document is based on irrefutable first hand information: interviews with detainees and U.S. officials. The document describes in stark detail the CIA’s use of forced standing, sleep deprivation, prolonged isolation, assaults, and waterboarding. It also discloses the participation of CIA medical personnel in torture.
Some revelations in the ICRC report have already become known through the reporting of journalists Mark Danner and Jane Mayer. As a result, press accounts have focused on the fresh news of medical personnel supervising and overseeing abuse. But other important facts about the report have been overlooked that make the question of torture not simply a matter of the past.
Since the basic facts about their involvement in the CIA interrogation program are now known, Panetta’s actions are increasingly looking like a cover-up.
The New York Times reported that Leon Panetta, the current CIA director, has taken the position that “no one who took actions based on legal guidance from the Department of Justice at the time should be investigated, let alone punished.” Yet a number of CIA officials implicated in the torture program not only remain at the highest levels of the agency, but are also advising Panetta. Panetta’s attempt to suppress the issue is making Bush’s policy into the Obama administration’s dirty laundry.
Take Stephen Kappes. At the time of the worst torture sessions outlined in the ICRC report, Kappes served as a senior official in the Directorate of Operations—the operational part of the CIA that oversees paramilitary operations as well as the high-value detention program. (The directorate of operations is now known as the National Clandestine Service.) Panetta has kept Kappes as deputy director of the CIA—the number two official in the agency. One of Kappes’ deputies from 2002-2004, Michael Sulick, is now director of the National Clandestine Service—the de facto number three in the agency. Panetta’s refusal to investigate may be intended to protect his deputies. Since the basic facts about their involvement in the CIA interrogation program are now known, Panetta’s actions are increasingly looking like a cover-up.
Another overlooked fact is this: the ICRC report is an important legal document that contains well-sustained allegations of criminal conduct with legal significance. Unlike earlier claims in books, magazines, and newspapers, the ICRC’s allegations are official notices from a legally recognized entity. The ICRC, after all, is not Human Rights Watch, the Washington Post, or The New Yorker, all of which have reported on the CIA’s secret prison program. The ICRC is an official entity recognized under the Geneva Conventions and various other earlier international treaties relating to armed conflict and prisoners of war. The ICRC is specifically tasked under the Geneva Conventions to visit prisoners and communicate with detaining powers to uphold the conventions’ spirit and purpose. Its interpretations and statements on matters of international law are held as legally authoritative. As such, the ICRC’s allegations have legal significance beyond previous disclosures. In effect, the document itself is evidence in a criminal case.
Note in particular the report’s date, February 14, 2007—Valentine’s Day. On that date, the U.S. government was put on notice about the allegations of CIA torture. (The ICRC also wrote to the U.S. governments about the issue of disappearances at several points in 2003-2006.)
Under international law—the Geneva Conventions, the Convention against Torture, and basic precepts of customary international law—the United States has a positive obligation to investigate and prosecute persons alleged to have committed torture and other violations of the laws of war. As of Valentine’s Day 2007, and possibly earlier, the U.S. government was obligated to investigate and prosecute the abuses detailed in the report. The United States’ failure to do so is a recurring breach of international law. If the Spanish case against six high-level Bush administration officials accused of authorizing torture proceeds, the Red Cross report—among other documents—may be entered as evidence. Further international prosecutions that the U.S. is obligated to respect may go down the chain of command to Panetta’s deputies.
The ICRC report does not contain information about the identities of CIA personnel involved in the program, although there are descriptions of some individual interrogators; nor does it discuss the involvement of senior government officials in the program.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
The Torture Loophole
John Sifton is a private investigator and attorney based in New York City. His firm, One World Research, carries out research for law firms and human rights groups, including in South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. He has conducted extensive investigations into the CIA interrogation and detention program.
What's Missing from the CIA Docs
John Sifton is a private investigator and attorney based in New York City. His firm, One World Research, carries out research for law firms and human rights groups, including in South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. He has conducted extensive investigations into the CIA interrogation and detention program.
Cheney's Big Torture Speech
John Sifton is a private investigator and attorney based in New York City. His firm, One World Research, carries out research for law firms and human rights groups, including in South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. He has conducted extensive investigations into the CIA interrogation and detention program.
This poison cannot be hidden much longer....it will all come pouring forth and justice must be served. Those in authority that were part of this sick scheme must be identified, charged and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. President Obama needs to open this pus filled wound on our nation and excise it.
On one hand, maybe the CIA has more pressing work like gathering intelligence and "connecting the dots". On the other, it is never good to have bad activities shrouded in secrecy.
I don't think it is productive to make it all seem so sinister. Remember who the real enemy is - the terrorists.
More of the same. This could be a real problem for Obama if he doesnt handle it quickly.
Following up on the latest extremist Cheney/Addington/Yoo arguments advanced by the Obama DOJ in order to shield Bush lawbreaking from disclosure and judicial review -- an episode I wrote about in detail yesterday, here -- it's worthwhile to underscore the implications of Barack Obama's conduct. When Obama sought to placate his angry supporters after he voted for the Bush/Cheney FISA-telecom immunity bill last June (after vowing the prior December to support a filibuster of any such legislation), this is what he said (h/t notavailable):
[The FISA bill] also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.
So candidate Obama unambiguously vowed to his supporters that he would work to ensure "full accountability" for "past offenses" in surveillance lawbreaking. President Obama, however, has now become the prime impediment to precisely that accountability, repeatedly engaging in extraordinary legal maneuvers to ensure that "past offenses" -- both in the surveillance and torture/rendition realm -- remain secret and forever immunized from judicial review. Put another way, Obama has repeatedly done the exact opposite of what he vowed he would do: rather than "seek full accountability for past offenses," he has been working feverishly to block such accountability, by embracing the same radical Bush/Cheney views and rhetoric regarding presidential secrecy powers that caused so much controversy and anger for the last several years.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
The CIA does what the President tells them to do. I see nothing in this article that says they did more. Did I miss it? CIA personnel are required to obey the President's orders. The only alternative I'm aware of is to quit. By foisting this on the CIA, it appears that they did more than they were told to do. If so, where's the proof?
True, pricklypear, the "terrorists" are the real enemy, but we're acting like terrorists here, so what does that make us -- our own enemy? We're not talking about torture of "known" or convicted terrorists here. We're talking about the government sweeping up anyone it wants, often by mistake, often while illegally in foreign territories, and holding them 8 years, denying them what our Founding Father's defined as "inalienable" and "self-evident" rights -- not rights they said only applied to some Americans -- then torturing them despite having zero evidence that they have done anything wrong or have any association with terrorists. Some almost certainly are terrorists and the actions may seem warranted in hindsight. Others, it has already been proven, we're totally innocent.
Do you have kids? If Iran or North Korea sent a covert ops team onto American soil and kidnapped your kids, held them indefinitely for years and tortured them, all the while saying they are not subject to basic human rights or international laws because they have unilaterally decided they are terrorists, is that ok? Let's say it turns out that some of the people they captured did turn out to be part of an American extremist group that was funding internal terrorists in those countries. You're kids of course had nothing to do it with, but after all Iran and North Korea have a right to protect themselves and a few innocent people being tortured is just the cost of doing that.
Are we just supposed to shrug our shoulders at that? There is absolutely no difference between what we did and that scenario. If you endorse one, you must endorse the other or be a hypocrite.
Our country, our laws, our system of justice, was all founded on the principle that the ends does not always justify the means - that there is a rule of law and that it errors on the side of protecting the rights of the innocent even when it sometimes allows the guilty to escape justice. Is it undeniably easier to fight terrorism if a covert agency can sweep up anyone they feel like and torture them in the hopes that some may actually be guilty and provide some useful intel. That doesn't make it ok. And some Americans who try and convince themselves that they're all guilty are absolutely complicit in the crime.
Should we hold the CIA officers accountable, even if they were acting under advice from the Justice Department that it was "ok"? OF COURSE we should. Let's put it another way. Should we have held the concentration camp guards that actively participated in the mass murder of people during World War II accountable? Most people thought we should - that the "just following orders" defense made no moral sense. Absolutely same situation here. Actually, even worse here because the American CIA officers didn't have to fear for their lives if they refused to comply. They could have just quit. They knew what they were doing was morally wrong, or they allowed themselves to believe in a warped, twisted morality. They should be held accountable.
let's not forget our country is in a financial crisis that obama is working towards fixing and he needs all the support he can get to get things through congress. if he comes out and prosecutes the mostly republican people involved in the torture cases, the republicans in congress will filibuster all the bills obama is trying to pass. i wish as much as anyone cheney and yoo would be put behind bars for life for what theyve done and let happen, but that can wait until obama gets the economy back on the rise. public outcry should not be directed towards obama's not going ahead with the prosecution, it should be aimed at the republicans who will deliberately put our country at risk of a financial meltdown because of what evil people within their highest ranks did.
NorCalGladiator is absolutely accurate but isn't correct.
Today it isn't 'convenient' because of the financial crisis - tomorrow it will be comprehensive medical care and the day after will be Cap and Trade.
At some point the US must act. The sooner the better.
Legal or illegal, Americans deserve to know what has acts may have been committed on their behalf. Airing this issue is more important. Congress who is mandate it is to provide oversight and ceded excessive authority to the Executive branch and then has failed to investigate both this issue and the decision to launch the invasion of Iraq? We should be less concerned about prosecutions which inflame political passions and more concerned with rebalancing power between the branches of government.
The thing is, none of this should be a surprise for Obama.
Yes - foreign govs helped us torture and they won't like it if we put that info in a public record (although we torture act duties to do just that) Yes - CIA operatives involved in the torture program were part of the group that included those with the most knowledge and info on al-Qaeda, Pakistan, etc. so if you dig on that you are putting assets who have some of the best background and ability to generate intel for you into the middle of the torture investigation.
Since when would any of this be news though? Obama's not that stupid - he doesn't face some new problem, he just spun like a disco boy while he campaigned. He never intended to do anything. Putting Clinton at State is also another layer against digging - if you dig deep and thoroughly you have to address the Clinton renditions to Egypt as well (no OLC memo for that IIRC and they were using consultation with former USA for SDNY Mary Jo White to get comfort advice on those transfers and no one seems to want to get anywhere near them).
We also still have that little issue of CIA misreps to Congress on the Missionary's plane as well.
It's not that I ever thought Obama would do the right thing on torture, but the fact that he seems to be spinning so aimlessly is odd. Did he really think things like the Spanish court referral, possible re-opening of German investigations, British investigtions, the return of Chaudhry to the Pakistani court, etc - did he not factor any of that in?
In any event, it is pretty damn hard to go to foreign countries that you need to hit up for assistance and that you need to keep stable with the prospect that you might be complying with law and thereby asserting war crimes against the guys whose hand you need to shake on terrorism issues. OTOH, if you don't commit to the rule of law, then you have further destabilization in the countries (see Pakistan as an example) and your credibility crumbles as other forces in those nations more commited to law and less committed to imperial torture powers force the issues.
The underlying point is that everyone is pretty much saying that the "patriotic" torturers are not at all above sabotaging the President and their own country if that's what it takes to save their personal asses. Hard to see why this is so surprising - orders came from the top, but the willingness to torture (especially when it was clear from fairly early on that it was torture to make Bush look good and to try to get something to justify prior torture and for its own purposes and that it was infecting the nation and the military) and to "creatively" request further torture options for approval and to abuse the innocent and leave Arar in the Palestinian branch and Kurnaz and Errachidi at GITMO and to dump el-Masri off in the middle of nowhere with nothing - - - those aren't things that can be equated easily with Patriotism.
So it's no wonder that they look at the torturers and wonder - if we investigate, what price are they willing to make the nation pay? And Obama blinks.
There's no such thing as a "patriotic torturer." By definition, to torture is un-American. It's great to cheer on Jack Bauer on 24 when he "does what it takes" to get the bad guys, but you notice how that work of fiction has the ability to always make sure Jack's victims are guilty. This is the real world. They are torturing people on speculation with zero evidence they have committed or even are associated with any criminal activity, let alone terrorism. That is criminal and no "orders" from the President change their moral obligation to decline to participate. They are effectively traitors to America and what it is supposed to stand for.
Since the Republicans showed how a party in control of the legislative branch could abuse the impeachment process with Clinton the Democrats wisely avoided the wholesale impeachment of the Bush-Cheney regime. However, none of the CIA or DOJ criminals should be allowed the "following orders" defense in the upcoming investigation. The US has gotten off its usual path and must be set back.
Also, if others seek to indict Cheney and others for war crimes, the US should not object.
This user is no longer registered.
After the Civil War, President Lincoln forgave the confederates of all their allegede crimes the same should be done in this case. Let's move ahead and not look back.
citivas
True, pricklypear, the "terrorists" are the real enemy, but we're acting like terrorists here, so what does that make us -- our own enemy?
--------------------------------------------------------
Well, apparently you say you think Americans are terrorists. That is so sad and hateful. Please don't use damning words so cavalierly. You just sound hysterical and immature. Save the word terrorists for the actual, real terrorists.
You don't even have any proof. You are just speculating.
citivas:
Just calm the hell down. Now you're comparing the CIA agents to WWII Nazi concentration camps? I don't mean this literally, but somebody needs to slap you back to reality. You're really really being hysterical and unreasonable.
Mary 2002:
"Yes - foreign govs helped us torture and they won't like it if we put that info in a public record "
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------
How do you know what isn't even in the public record?
i can't believe this shit is still being debated, as if some how, it is going to comfort and reassured us in oh so many ways, when all this CIA shit hits the sunshine. moveon re org
It's almost as though the option of ignoring evidence, delaying a full-blown investigation and putting off prosecution is off the table. This is not a campaign issue any longer. It's not Bush's issue any longer. It belongs to Obama. And Obama belongs to the American people. He says he likes it that way. We're demanding the facts be known and that those that committed crimes be held accountable. For Obama not to demand a full investigation, hence a full unraveling and uncovering of these egregious acts of torture, puts him in a complicit position. He becomes one of them. He's on their side. He protects them. That's wrong and possibly criminal. Maybe he is, afterall, not a man of principle, but rather, only a man of [social] programs. That would be such ashame.
"Is Leon Panetta Covering Up Torture?"
It would appear so and it is hardly surprising considering Obama's "moving forward, not looking backwards" mantra which is intended to save face with his base who understandably want to see Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld and the rest of the war criminals prosecuted, while making it clear to the elite power dons pulling the strings that he won't have his fellow puppets of the Cheney regime in the dock for crimes against humanity, that instead he is following his puppetmasters' orders and is going to allow them to live out the rest of their lives in the lap of luxury.
To Robjh1, yes Lincoln did, and even let them keep their firearms so they could hunt for food, but the problem with your analogy is that the crimes of the Confederacy were against other Americans, not of the foreign policy variety, and in letting the Cheneyites get away with torture (and mass murder, having started a war of aggression against Iraq) they are saying to the rest of the world that it's OK for the U.S. to criticize OTHER countries' war criminals but that AMERICAN war criminals can have people tortured and cause mass murder (and give cancer to Iraqis for millions of years to come via American depleted uranium munitions used in Iraq) and nothing will happen to them, because they're Americans. So it reinforces the world's well-founded perception that the U.S. is completely unable to police itself and hold its own war criminals accountable, yet still won't refrain from being the world's biggest hypocrite and screaming about OTHER countries' war criminals.
prickypear, the best you can do is try to insult me rather than respond substantively to the points? How is that "mature"? You're the one who sounds more "hysterical," because you are reacting so emotionally you can't speak to substance. I feel perfectly calm, thank you.
I didn't suggest all American's were terrorists - learn to read. But I did suggest that the actions of illegally extracting civilians from their home countries with no rule of law and indefinitely holding them against international laws that we as a country helped form and signed onto, offering them no right of counsel or access to their own government's representatives and no due process, then torturing them without any process of review to even assure there is any reasonable basis for assuming their guilt is an act of terrorism by the people doing it and those all the way up the chain of command authorizing it. Do you think that "terrorist" somehow only applies to U.S. enemies, that by definition anything we do is "sanctioned" and "appropriate"? If so, I would suggest that you are the one that needs to "grow up." It's a textbook case of terrorism. We are knowingly committing violence against innocent civilians.
Proof? There is loads of it. Read the Red Cross report. Read the interviews with people who have been there, both as prisoners and American's who worked their or visited in an official capacity. Even some Republicans, like McCain, have admitted some of the U.S. techniques qualify as torture and condemned them.
PP - "How do you know what isn't even in the public record?"
Bc most of what I referenced is in a public record - sometime a US public record and sometimes that of another country.
There is an extensive public record generated by the Canadian courts on Maher Arar's rendition. You know, the "terrorist" Maher Arar? And Syrian/Jordanian participation. There is also the public record of Arar's uncontroverted testimony about others that the US had being tortured at the Palestinian branch for it and a chunk of the Canadian record has supporting statement for that.
There is a public record in Italian proceedings regarding Egyptian assistance with US torture rendtions.
Baroness Scotland and the UK have made referrals to Scotland Yard of 29 cases of UK assistance in US directed torture and that referral references participation of the governments of Kenya, Pakistan, Jordan, Syria and others.
The Pakistani high court has generated several matters of public record of Pakistani participation in US directed torture. The actions of the Pakistani High Court Chief Justice, Chaudhry to force more of thes matters onto the public record and to demand an accounting for numerous disappeared persons resulted in Musharaf yanking Chaudhry off the bench and putting him under house arrest. That generated the "penguin revolt" of Pakistani lawyers and the promise of Bhutto's widower to reinstate Chaudhry. He didn't and faced further revolt from within, such that he recently reinstated Chaudhry. [And one of the first things Chaudhry did once back on the bench is go after the Taliban for the SWAT Valley flogging]
Meanwhile, back in the United States, the Kurnaz case is a matter of public record and is several years old. Government "inadvertently" declassified his file at some point during his civlian lawyers attempts to pursue his release and the declassified file, almost all 200 pp of it, was full of numerous US and foreign intel services all saying that Kurnaz had no ties with terrorism. The only evidence against him was a memo that indicated he must be a terrorist bc he prayed during the pledge of allegiance and some related nonsense - something stuck in to paper the file.
Gov then tried to do a quickie reclassifiy (although by now the Judge had been presented with the info as well) and prevent the lawyes from using all the exculpatory information - saying that if they used evidence proving their client was innocent to ... prove their client was innocent they would go after them. The Judge (I think maybe Kessler, it's been awhile so I'd have to go look) was starting to be less than pleased and so they spirited him off of GITMO and back to Germany to try to just avoid any consequences from that public record. And oh yeah, there had also been a claim made against him that a friend of his had ended up being a suicide bomber - except that friend was alive and well back in Germany. Also part of the public record.
Then there was Khalid el-Masri. It's not a court proceeding record (although we have those, gov has continually shot his case down under states secrets invocations.) He was another German who unfortunately had the same name as a terrorist. Again, its not a court proceeding, but after Merkel was elected it was pretty big news in European press that in her first "behind closed doors" meeting with Condi Rice, Merkel came out of the meeting and publically acknowledged that Rice had told her that we did kidnap and torture el-Masri "by mistake"
Back to court records, there is the case of the Uighurs (found to not be enemy combatants of any kind, much less illegal enemy combatants, by two separate US Dist Court Judges, on pre-Boumediene case and anothe post-Boudmediene case.
Then there is the case of Aafia Siddiqui's 14 yo US citizen child who, even the testimony of the US, date indicates was handed off to Afghan intelligence and disapppeared, until Pakistan made a firm claim for him to be reappeared. There was a public diplomatic record on that (the Pakistani requests and reported handoffs) and there has been the statements of counsel admitting to "losing" her son to the Afghan intel when they took her into custody.
And then there is the public record of the Algerians at GITMO - found to be innocent of any terrorism in their home country after the US tried to have them arrested (all based on what pretty much looks like a disgruntled in law trying to get even) and then sprited away from their country by the US and finally after years at GITMO determined by a US Dist Court Judge to NOT be enemy combatants, ever.
There is the pending case of the Batarfi, and here's a transcript link to the most recent hearing in front of Judge Sullivan on that matter:
http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2009/04/06/19/Taylor-batarfi.source. prod_affiliate.91.pdf
Seems like the "star witness" against Batarfi is a guy that is mentally ill and that informaton was wrongfully withheld from Batarfi's lawyers. Gov is arguing that it doesn't matter, because they have turned over so much OTHER info on THEIR *star witness* that he has no crediblity anyway - he has so many OTHER crediblity issues being mentally ill isn't even as bad as the rest of it they admit. And yet Batarfi (and others) have been held for years on the basis of that "star witness." That is a part of the public record now as well.
And while not part of a court proceeding, there's also this:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/09/sb-six-questions-emile-nakhleh-11 58706094
information published over 2 years ago that has the Director of the CIA's Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program stating very clearly that from the time he was sent to GITMO:
"Even the command down there knew that probably one-third of the prisoners were neither terrorists nor jihadists, and wouldn't have been there if we weren't paying a bounty to Pakistani security forces for every Middle Eastern-looking person they handed over to us."
He didn't hide behind anonymity and he also points out
"Unfortunately, we treated everyone the same, which led the non-jihadists at Guantánamo to hate us as much as the rest, becoming more hardened in their attitudes toward the US and more disappointed in the American sense of fairness and justice. "
I guess I have to wonder how you can have such strong opinions and purport to know that we are only torturing terrorists and yet be so ill informed about what exactly is in the public record.
This sets a dangerous precedent. mark my words, if the perpetrators of the sick scheme are not brought to justice, it WILL happen again.
I know this hurts to hear, Democrats. But we don't need to nail Bush on torture. Think of this as the second reformation. The crazy nutbag, bible-thumping racists have been in control for 8 years. Now we need to bring the country back together.
What is the end-game of convicting Bush? If he is guilty of war crimes, then he will need to be executed. Think of what that would do to our country. Let it all go. And make sure another Republican is never elected.
there definitely needs to be legal recourse against bush and the people who did this. if not for the principle, at least for the expansion of executive powers and the precedents set
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.