(4) Holder ‘Appoints’ Special Prosecutor to Review CIA Interrogations
US Attorney General Eric Holder announced that he is expanding the mandate of Special Counsel John Durham to include a ‘preliminary review’ (not yet an investigation) into the legality of CIA interrogations of certain detainees.
Durham was originally appointed in 2008 by then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate the destruction of CIA videotapes of detainee interrogations.
The decision to begin a preliminary review was based on his examination of two items. First a report, produced by his department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, regarding the Office of Legal Counsel’s ‘enhanced interrogation technique’ memoranda. The New York Times reports that this document recommends “reversing the Bush administration and reopening nearly a dozen prisoner-abuse cases.”
The second is the 2004 CIA Inspector General’s report.
(5) CIA Releases Internal Report
The CIA has now (re)-released this internal CIA report on the agency’s secret detention and interrogation program in response to a request by the ACLU in its ongoing Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The document is a detailed report regarding then-CIA Inspector General John L. Helgerson’s May 2004 review of the agency’s program.
The 159 page report was already released by the Bush Administration in 2008, but with all but a few paragraphs blacked out, it was not particularly informative. The current version, while less redacted, is nonetheless still heavily censored.
The report describes unauthorized practices subject to investigation such as a man being “lifted off the floor by his arms while his arms were bound behind his back with a belt,” another strangled until he passed out and then shaken awake – the process being repeated three times, and another being beaten to death with a large metal flashlight.
It also re-iterates the arguments for authorized ‘enhanced interrogation’ practices, such as waterboarding.
The document’s censor-lite release has been delayed several times on the basis of the possible chilling effect on intelligence sharing, with former Vice President Dick Cheney vociferously defending the authorized practices as effective for information gathering purposes.
It was widely believed that the report would hit at the lack of effectiveness of the authorized techniques. At first blush, some might argue that it does the opposite by describing certain uncovered plots – such as attacks against West Coast buildings, Heathrow airport and trains.
But it also points out that no evidence existed that any of these plots were “imminent” – nor does it provide information as to whether any were supported by any other evidence at all. Moreover, “[t]he effectiveness of particular interrogation techniques in eliciting information that might not otherwise have been obtained cannot be so easily measured.”
A particularly good breakdown of the implications of the memo can be found on TIME magazine’s blog.
(6) Leon Panetta Defends CIA’s actions
CIA Director Leon Panetta, in a statement issued to CIA employees, defends the CIA’s practices inasmuch as they were within the legal guidance provided upon request. He emphasizes that those practices that fell outside the legal guidance were referred to the Justice Department for investigation, or for internal disciplinary action.
This situation has raised an interesting, much debated question – that is, if the CIA asked for legal guidance but received a bad interpretation, should those acting in good faith under the incorrect interpretation be punished?
While some argue that the tenet ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse‘ (picture for example, a memorandum insulating Bernie Madoff from prosecution because it told him Ponzi schemes were perfectly legal) should mean prosecuting everyone involved from the interrogators to the top officials, the White House has announced, and Holder has reiterated that no one acting in “good faith and within the scope of legal guidance” will be prosecuted.
As for ‘effectiveness’ of the methods, while Panetta states that he doesn’t have any interest in taking part in the debate, he then continues that “[t]he CIA obtained intelligence from high-value detainees when inside information on al-Qa’ida was in short supply. Whether this was the only way to obtain that information will remain a legitimate area of dispute, with Americans holding a range of views on the methods used.”
But while Americans may hold a range of views on many issues, the proper execution of the law is not generally a matter of public opinion.
