the banality of evil: like father, like son?

The Bush Administration has once again set out to show us just how banal evil can be.

While the latest revelation of the CIA destruction of at least two tapes documenting their interrogation of alleged al Qaeda suspects is yet another cut-and-dried case of obstruction of justice by this administration, I want to take just a moment to reflect on the reason given for why these tapes were made in the first place:

General Hayden said the tapes were originally made to ensure that agency employees acted in accordance with “established legal and policy guidelines.” General Hayden said the agency stopped videotaping interrogations in 2002.

“The tapes were meant chiefly as an additional, internal check on the program in its early stages,” his statement read.

. . . .

A former intelligence official who was briefed on the issue said the videotaping was ordered as a way of assuring “quality control” at remote sites following reports of unauthorized interrogation techniques.

Because, as we all know, there is nothing more embarrassing to a government than torture of inferior quality. Especially at those franchise outlets “remote sites.”

Now back to the obstruction destruction. . . .

Daniel Marcus, a law professor at American University who served as general counsel for the Sept. 11 commission and was involved in the discussions about interviews with Al Qaeda leaders, said he had heard nothing about any tapes being destroyed.

If tapes were destroyed, he said, “it’s a big deal, it’s a very big deal,” because it could amount to obstruction of justice to withhold evidence being sought in criminal or fact-finding investigations.

. . . .

John Radsan, who worked as a C.I.A. lawyer from 2002 to 2004 and is now a professor at William Mitchell College of Law, said the destruction of the tapes could carry serious legal penalties.

“If anybody at the C.I.A. hid anything important from the Justice Department, he or she should be prosecuted under the false statement statute,” he said.

It seems to me beyond any doubt that the Bush Administration withheld important information about the existence of the tapes, their contents, and their destruction from Congress, the 9/11 Commission, and the judge and defense team in the Zacarias Moussaoui case, but I am beyond holding my breath until we get any movement toward arrests and prosecution in any of those instances.

I am not, however, beyond now speculating about the timing of the release of the new NIE on Iran’s nuclear capabilities, in light of our fresh understanding that the New York Times had planned to go public with the tape story today, Friday, and had officially notified the CIA on Wednesday. I can pretty much guarantee that Michael Hayden knew that this story was on its way some time before that.

In fact, I can’t even fathom the “dumb luck” of having the NIE and the tape destruction revelations come out in the same week—and in the same week as Mitt Romney’s “JFK moment” (not), and a (another) mass shooting, to boot

It’s really too much to fathom. Best we go back to our holiday shopping.

But, before we do, let me add that I draw this post to a close without anything in the way of a new revelation or much of a new angle—and for that, I feel a tad bad.

It’s not as if I didn’t try. Since I read of the tape scandal Thursday afternoon, I have been searching almost non-stop for a very specific angle, and I just can’t find the quotable, linkable piece of evidence I seek.

So, I am going to throw this out to you for help:

I will date myself here, but I have a very clear memory of a certain DCI named George H.W. Bush ignoring congressional requests for files and, indeed, destroying files in a direct rebuke of investigators. I even think I remember him justifying the destruction by saying that the CIA just didn’t have the room to store the files anymore.

The thing is, I can’t remember what the files were, and I can’t find a primary source that refers to this incident.

I believe this happened in the spring or summer of 1976—but the revelation might have come later. It is possible that the files concerned investigations into CIA programs known as CHAOS and CONDOR. The former having to do with Agency spying on domestic activist groups in the 1960’s and ‘70’s, the latter concerning CIA ties to South American shenanigans like the overthrow of Chilean President Salvador Allende, the instillation of Augusto Pinochet, the torture of dissidents, and the murder three years later of Pinochet opponent Orlando Letellier and American Ronni Moffitt by car bomb on the streets on Washington DC. There is also the possibility that the files in question concerned CIA operations in Cuba.

Or maybe they were about something else—the details of this are hazy to me.

But, I feel relatively certain GHW Bush did destroy CIA records, and that he did so in defiance of Congress. If anyone else has this recollection, can shed some light on it, or can point to a newspaper article or a Congressional report, please let me know via comment or e-mail.

Thank you.

(cross-posted on capitoilette, The Seminal, and Daily Kos)

who ya’ gonna call?

Well, even if they’re twice as good at counterterrorism as they are at graphic design, clearly not these guys.

(h/t Think Progress)

another day, another broken law

Well, as you may know, I am not a lawyer, but my common sense sure keeps telling me that laws are being broken. Yesterday, I touched upon my feeling that private security contractors had likely run afoul of the Anti-Pinkerton Act of 1893; today, I want to direct your attention to 18 U.S.C. 1001, AKA The Fraud and False Statements Statute.

It was really quite by accident that I happened upon an old post by Morton Halperin (he’s the smart Halperin) that talked about how NSA director Michael Hayden’s bout of lying to Congress bore a striking resemblance to the behavior of Nixon CIA chief Richard Helms. Helms, as Halperin points out, was charged under the FFSS (my shorthand) for lying to Congress about CIA involvement in overthrowing the Allende government in Chile (he plead no contest and received a suspended sentence). That item referred me to 18 U.S.C., and this is the text of the law that once brought people to justice:

Section 1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly
and willfully -
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or
device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the
same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5
years, or both.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial
proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements,
representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or
counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the
legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to -
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a
matter related to the procurement of property or services,
personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a
document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to
the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative
branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the
authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of
the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or
Senate.

(my apologies if the formatting above doesn’t hold to form)

OK, again, I’m not a lawyer, but as I read it, that first part about concealing and covering up and misrepresenting sure sounds like a good many moments from the last six and three-quarter years,

Specifically, I thought about 18 U.S.C. 1001 while reading two days of New York Times’ revelations about secret Justice Department memorandums that provided the “intellectual” cover for the CIA to continue the Bush/Cheney policy of torturing prisoners taken in their GWOT™. With new information about documents that gave the go-ahead to techniques and programs that Congress outlawed and the Supreme Court said violated the Geneva Conventions, documents that Bush officials from the Attorney General and DCI on down failed to provide to the appropriate oversight committees, it seems to me abundantly clear that several members of the administration have knowingly and willfully concealed and covered-up the DoJ findings, and then just as knowingly and willfully made false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements about what has actually been happening inside the White House, the Justice Department, and an unknown number of “black sites” around the world.

Saying “we do not torture” or, as White House spokesperson Dana Perino said on Thursday, “What I can tell you is that any procedures that they use are tough, safe, necessary and lawful,” actually doesn’t get around the language of the Fraud and False Statements Statute. It’s not whether the findings that Justice drafted are sound or well-reasoned or will withstand judicial scrutiny, it is that Justice drafted said findings and then failed to inform Congress while all sorts of administration personnel basically pretended that the memos didn’t exist.

News this morning tells us that Rep. John Conyers wants the memos turned over to his committee, and the ACLU is calling for an independent investigation. Could they have 18 U.S.C. in mind?

Indictments anyone?


(cross-posted to The Seminal and Daily Kos)

sow now, reap later

Not a lot of time for the big think-piece today, so I’m going to let you play some high-minded connect the dots. Let me direct your attention to three stories:

First, from the New York Times:

U.S. Arming Sunnis in Iraq to Battle Old Qaeda Allies

BAGHDAD, June 10 — With the four-month-old increase in American troops showing only modest success in curbing insurgent attacks, American commanders are turning to another strategy that they acknowledge is fraught with risk: arming Sunni Arab groups that have promised to fight militants linked with Al Qaeda who have been their allies in the past.

Second, from the LA Times,

U.S. relies on Sudan despite condemning it
The nation accused of aiding the killings in Darfur provides spies in Iraq. In return, it gets access in Washington.

WASHINGTON — Sudan has secretly worked with the CIA to spy on the insurgency in Iraq, an example of how the U.S. has continued to cooperate with the Sudanese regime even while condemning its suspected role in the killing of tens of thousands of civilians in Darfur.

President Bush has denounced the killings in Sudan's western region as genocide and has imposed sanctions on the government in Khartoum. But some critics say the administration has soft-pedaled the sanctions to preserve its extensive intelligence collaboration with Sudan.

And third, from the AP by way of HufPo:

Prisons Ban Books Over Fear of Radicals

NEW YORK — Inmates at the federal prison camp in Otisville, N.Y., were stunned by what they saw at the chapel library on Memorial Day _ hundreds of books had disappeared from the shelves.

The removal of the books is occurring nationwide, part of a long-delayed, post-Sept. 11 federal directive intended to prevent radical religious texts, specifically Islamic ones, from falling into the hands of violent inmates.

Discuss. . . .

Rice eats Bush

A forthcoming biography of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, excerpted in Newsweek (and linked to by Think Progress) includes the following, um, tasty tidbits. . . .

. . . Rice was drawn to Bush. "First of all, I thought he was wonderful to be around," she recalled, sitting on the couch in her State Department office. "He was warm and funny and easy to be around. I thought he had just an incredibly inquisitive mind ... You could barely finish an explanation before he was digging into it."

Digging into what? Huh? [cough] Sorry. OK. . . .

Bush was also a bad boy. And Rice, according to friends and family, had a thing for bad boys. . . .

Boy? Bush is a “bad boy” you say? More like a petulant child. . . .

Rice's friends insisted the attraction to Bush was platonic, but Brenda Hamberry-Green, her Palo Alto hairdresser, who had spent years commiserating with Rice over how hard it was for successful black women to find a good man, noticed a change when Rice started working for Bush. "He fills that need," Hamberry-Green decided. "Bush is her feed.”

Wha-a-a-a. . . I think I just swallowed some of my own vomit. I guess that’s how she keeps her girlish figure (remember: Bush “feed” is part of a balanced lifestyle that includes diet and exercise. . . and lying for your husband boss.)

[Says Rice’s] stepmother Clara Rice: "she just can't say no to that man."

(This) White House sex scandal aside, the issue that has Rice steamed this week concerns the release of a book by former CIA chief George Tenet where he accuses the then-National Security Adviser of dismissing his urgent warnings, back in the Summer of 2001, about an imminent attack on the US by al Qaeda terrorists. Specifically, Tenet says he told Rice, “We need to consider immediate action inside Afghanistan now. We need to move to the offensive.”

When confronted with that quote this weekend on CBS’s Face the Nation, Rice gets quite hot and bothered, and her response is really something wild:

The idea of launching preemptive strikes into Afghanistan in July of 2001, this is a new fact. I don’t know what we were supposed to preemptively strike in Afghanistan. Perhaps somebody can ask that.

So many things to parse, so little time. . . . Last first: What you were supposed to strike? Uh, I think his name sounds something like OSAMA BIN LADEN! Second, Rice seems taken aback by the suggestion that they launch a preemptive strike. . . because she has some sort of deep-seated opposition to preemptive force?

But the thing that really pricks my ears: “this is a new fact.” What a strange construction. Rice doesn’t say, “Tenet is lying,” she doesn’t say, “That’s not true,” or, “That didn’t happen,” she says Tenet’s revelation is a “new fact.” True. . . but new.

New to whom?

Worth “digging into,” don’t you think?


(By the way, Happy “Law Day.”)