How rabbit hole deep are the politics of torture memos Obama faces? Just think about a few things.

[HamdenRice]

The media is reporting that four former directors of the CIA held up the release of the torture memos -- George Tenet, Michael Hayden, Porter Goss, and John Deutch.

I wish people would just stop and think about these things a little.

Think deeply about this. Really. Stop and think.

Four former CIA heads prevented the president from releasing these memos for about a month.

Four former CIA directors.

Some of you people think that Obama is like an elected king and can snap his fingers and make things happen.

Yet the president and the current CIA director seemed to have been unable to overrule four former CIA directors for a month.

Doesn't that make anybody stop and think about how things actually work in Washington?

Now, it's possible that they just put up very good arguments that made the current administration stop and think and debate. Or maybe they said they’d get on the TV and be very publicly cross.

Or is it possible that they threatened something or that they presented information about something very dire happening if the memos were released?

Has anyone noticed that one of the former CIA directors who managed to delay the release of the memos was the head of the NSA when it, it is now alleged, was spying widely on citizens, politicians and journalists -- far beyond the scope of "listening to terrorists’s phone conversations"?

Obama is playing chess. Most of DU thinks it's watching a checkers game.

Have any of you actually begun to read and analyze the memos? Can you see why there is something fishy going on?

Some of the four former CIA directors and other opponents of releasing them have suggested that the disclosure of the methods outlined in these memos would compromise intelligence gathering – that, for example, our interrogation tactics would be ineffective against terrorists who would know from the memos what we were going to do to them and what our limits are.

But the strange thing about the memos is how little new information there is in them. They are chillingly inhumane, sure. But all of the major tactics have been disclosed already. Plus Obama says we're never going to use them. So how could disclosing these already known tactics which are never going to be used again affect the usefulness of these tactics?

Doesn’t anyone else think this is even a little bit fishy?

What is all this really about?

The first memo is about the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, supposedly one of the masterminds of the 9/11 attacks.

All of Abu Zubaydah's torture tapes have been destroyed, supposedly because they were evidence of torture. But strangely, they kept the Abu Ghraib pictures and videos, which are much worse.

The Zubaydah memo is dated August 2002. Now here's the odd thing about his interrogation. By most accounts, he was initially described as high ranking al Qaeda who was difficult to interrogate. He gave some information, but not enough. The CIA asked for permission to use tougher tactics, which the August memo granted.

What has been lost in the recent news is what tactics the CIA used. They became much, much rougher and more violent with him. Then took him overseas to a CIA black site in Afghanistan.

But they told him that they had transferred him to the Saudis . The CIA thought that Zubaydah would be terrified that the Saudis would kill him or torture him much worse than the CIA, and that he would therefore tell the Saudis more. But the Saudis were fake. They were CIA officers pretending to be the Sauidis.

What little we know about what happened next doesn't come from "crazy conspiracy theorists". It comes from Robert Baer, the former CIA case officer, and media go to guy about Middle East intelligence, as well as the author of the well respected CIA memoire, “See No Evil” (and supposedly the basis for the main character in “Syrianna”). The other source of this story is professional anti-conspiracy theorist Gerald Posner, who claims it was leaked to him by disgruntled CIA agents.

Now, here's where it gets weirder. When Zubaydah was delivered to the fake Saudis, instead of being terrified, he was relieved and happy. He told the fake Saudis that he had been afraid that the CIA was going to kill him (a clear violation of the memo, which said the CIA could not cause a prisoner to think he was going to be killed).

Zubaydah then told the fake Saudis that he was happy he was in their custody because high ranking Saudis would know what to do with him . He began to give out personal and cell phone numbers of Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul-Aziz, one of King Fahd's nephews . The fake Saudi's threatened to torture him because he was disparaging the Saudi kingdom.

But Zubayday went further. He gave the names of two other Saudi princes, and the head of Pakistan's air force as his handlers. He said all these officials knew about the 9/11 attacks before hand. He implicated Saudi Intelligence Minister Prince Turki al-Faisal.

According to information leaked by disgruntled CIA officers, he then gave a narration that has never been released to the public, that the CIA officers called, the "Rosetta Stone" of 9/11 -- none of which, of course, got into the 9/11 Commission Report.

Wrong answer!

Poor Zubaydah!

According to Saturday's New York Times, in his Red Cross testimony, Zubaydah said it was then that the real torture began -- the dehumanizing, degrading, mind killing torture.

And in the press, the Bush administration began backpeddling about Zubaydah's importance. Suddenly he was just a glorified supply clerk!

So the question is, if he already given the Rosetta Stone of 9/11, why did the really severe torture begin after that? Maybe the purpose wasn't to get more information.

Well, maybe we could talk to those three Saudi princes named in Zubaydah’s “Rosetta Stone” of 9/11? Sadly, prince number one died of a blod clot or heart attack while having liposuction. Prince number two died the next day in a one-car car crash on the way back from the funeral of prince number one. Prince number three died one week later of “thirst”. And the Pakistani air force chief was dead by February 2003, when his plane exploded in mid air, killing him, his wife and 15 aides.

When the public was closing in on the Zubaydah torture case, the CIA destroyed all the tapes -- including the "Rosetta Stone" tapes. According to Robert Baer, "the people who think 9/11 was an inside job might easily be able to believe that Abu Zubaydah named his American accomplices in the tape that has now been destroyed by the CIA."

The real conflict over the torture memos may not be over torture at all. It may be that an inquiry into the torture of Zubaydah is the thread that begins to unravel the cloth of the official story.

So if you think that Obama can just snap his fingers and make all the torture information public and put the "bad guys" on trial -- well, just think about it for a minute.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. Wasn't the current CIA director on the side opposing release?

re: "Yet the president and the current CIA director seemed to have been unable to overrule four former CIA directors for a month."

[Mist]

2. Thanks very much for posting this, Hamdan--excellent summary. I hadn't realized just how

ridiculous the CIA claims of "compromising security" were (re: the torture memos) until you laid it out so cogently.

Yes, far more going on here than torture and other illegal behavior. And the three Saudi princes dying so quickly one after the other is something I wasn't aware of. Grist for the mill--all this will, I hope, lead to a fuller, and better, understanding of our recent history.

Thanks again for posting.

[Mist]

3. Kicked and rec'd. More people need to see this! nt

[GTurck]

4. Unfortunately...

America is a checker playing country in a chess playing world. We think everything is easy or should be.

[lunatica]

5. I've already argued at DU that there are dots we don't see regarding the CIA

and it's because in this country the CIA is above the law. If President Obama were to actually prosecute any of its members it would probably set our 'intelligence gathering' back 30 years or more. The example I used was something we know about and that's the 'outing' of Valerie Plame who worked with a manufactured business as a front and who tracked the nuclear capability in the Middle East and more specifically in Iran. There was conjecture and leaked information that many of the people her supposed company used, implying that they were spies, were killed, but we couldn't know who they were because it was a CIA secret.

[HamdenRice]

6. And if the interrogators of Zubaydah were left twisting in the wind ...

what would their defense be? What would come out at their trial?

I personally wouldn't mind it at all if a lot came out. But my point is that there are things that are being weighed within the government that we can barely dream about.

[lunatica]

8. I think National Security is a serious issue with the CIA involved

Not just domestic, although that's certainly always a threatening possibility, but for U.S. interests abroad which are vulnerable whether they're legitimate or spy fronts. And outing our CIA agents means other countries' 'intelligence gathering' agencies become openly vulnerable too. Britain's M16 and Israel's Mossad for example, who in some ways are joined at the hip with us. Your comparison to Syriana is probably pretty accurate.

[Hutzpa]

32. True

just shows how the plot thickens.

Just to enslave the American people mentally.

They kept ear-fuckin us for 8 years with fear.

[Spazito]

7. Interesting hypothesis...

The argument from the 4 former CIA directors re the disclosure of the torture methods is ludicrous on it's face just as you say. I have NO doubt there is much more to this than meets the eye.

The release of the torture memos would have still been fought on that level alone because it is clear what was done WAS torture, a breach of Title 18 and the Geneva Conventions but there certainly is cause for suspecting there is much more behind the objection.

[starroute]

9. Much of this was discussed here back in 2004

In a June 19, 2004 thread about William S. Farish quitting as ambassador to the UK, seemslikeadream wrote:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x632508#634119

Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz, owner of War Emblem (who won the first two of three Triple Crown races in 2002) was at the top of the list of a group of well-connected Saudis who left the country from Lexington, KY in a luxurious customized 727 shortly after 9-11. According to one of bin Laden’s top operatives, Aziz knew well beforehand that a major attack was to take place in the US on 9-11. And the Bush administration let the bastard fly the coop. The very fact that a couple of hundred Saudis were flying around within the US to central pickup points like Lexington, while US citizens were prohibited from flying from Minneapolis to Chicago is totally outrageous.

On March 30, 2002, Al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah was captured in Pakistan and questioned by two teams of intelligence agents. One of the teams consisted of Arab Americans posing as Saudi agents, who hoped to scare Zubaydah into thinking he would be turned over to the Saudis for the usual torture and beheading. Far from being intimidated, Zubaydah was relieved, and told them that a call to Prince Ahmed would explain all—and he knew all the phone numbers from memory. He also told them to call Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud and Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir, members of the House of Saud related to Kind Fahd. ...

Bush helped Ahmed leave the country right after 9-11, unmolested until June 22, 2002, when he supposedly died of a heart attack in his sleep. On June 23, Prince Sultan died in a car wreck. On July 30, Prince Fahd died in the desert of thirst. None was older than 43, and all are beyond questioning now.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x632508#634153

The reporting of Dan Hopsicker (Madcowprod.com, 12-26-2001), delves deeply into what a Tampa Tribune headline called, “The Phantom Flight from Florida,” wherein a Saudi prince - the son of the nation’s defense minister - as well as the son of a Saudi army commander took off in a twin-engine Lear jet just two days after the September 11 attacks, when every other plane in the United States was grounded. Moreover, Hopsicker made a special point that the Federal Government said the flight never happened despite the Tribune’s glaring headline. Meanwhile no one has even asked why the princes were in Tampa on 9/11!

The two Saudi princes flew to Lexington, Kentucky where other Saudi princes were purchasing racehorses; and from there, they flew a private 747 jet out of the country. But two armed bodyguards hired by the Saudis to get the princes out of Florida told Hopsicker that the Saudi plane took off from a private hanger at Raytheon Airport Services in Tampa.

Hopsicker’s report ultimately traced the ownership of the Lear Jet to Wally Hilliard, who is a partner of Rudi Dekkers, owner of the Venice, Florida flight school where most of the Saudi terrorists developed their airplane hijacking skills.

----------------------

Another lengthy comment was then added by emad:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x632508#637742

“The name Zubaydah gave came as a complete surprise to the CIA. It was Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz, the owner of many legendary racehorses and one of the most westernized members of the royal family. On September 16, 2001, Prince Ahmed, of course, had boarded the flight in Lexington as part of the evacuation plan approved by the Bush White House.” ...

“Prince Ahmed was well known not just in Saudi Arabia, but also in publishing circles in London and horse-racing circles in Kentucky. He was such an unlikely name that the interrogators immediately assumed Zubaydah was lying to buy time. . . .The interrogators then keep their prisoner on a ‘bare minimum’ of pain medication and interrupted his sleep with bright lights for hour after hour before restarting the Sodium Pentothal drip.” ...

After discussing Prince Ahmed’s purchase of War Emblem, the horse’s success in the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness, and the awkward presence at the Derby of New York firefighters who had lost many of their co-workers on 9/11, the program highlights Prince Ahmed’s curious absence from the U.S. when War Emblem was running in the Belmont Stakes. Prince Ahmed then died on 7/22/2002, allegedly of a heart attack. “ . . . But on June 8, Prince Ahmed did not even show up at the Belmont Stakes, the third part of the Triple Crown. ‘I’m disappointed the prince wasn’t here,’ said trainer Bob Baffeert. Ahmed was said to be tending to family obligations in Riyadh. An associate said that he did not know the nature of the obligations. In any case, War Emblem stumbled as he came out of the starting gate and came in eighth. About six weeks later, on July 22, Prince Ahmed was dead. News reports said the forty-three-year-old nephew of King Fahd had died in his sleep due to a heart attack.”

[HamdenRice]

13. News reports that the tapes were destroyed did not come out until 2007

Pieces of the picture have been leaking out over the years.

[rug]

10. He has not been unable to overrule them for three months. He simply listened to them.

After considering their views, he released the memos anyway.

If you think they represent hidden powers that are not responsive to democratic processes, you're building a case for revolution. That's fine with me but say it less cryptically.

[HamdenRice]

11. I'm not talking about hidden powers

It's just that business in Washington is done by promising to do or not do things, and bargaining over such promises.

[rug]

12. Like this?

"Or is it possible that they threatened something or that they presented information about something very dire happening if the memos were released?"

Sounds like you're implying more than highway funds.

[HamdenRice]

14. "presented information about something very dire happening if the memos were released"

Yeah, like that. Like that foreign governments would not like it if the interrogators of Zubaydah went on trial and might take certain actions. Or that if there were a trial, certain information would come out.

Mostly, this is about the release of embarrassing and potentially delegitimating information.

[autorank]

15. Great connection - Saudi fake out, 911, destroyed tapes k*r

That's first rate analysis and it really strikes a chord.

Getting caught WHEN he did was the worst possible timing imaginable. He was the focus of every bit of madness in the White House. Completely torn apart by their fear and illness:

There was just one seemingly insurmountable problem: Zubaydah was not the "mastermind" that the White House needed so desperately. After several weeks of nonviolent interrogation, the initial interrogators said he'd given up what he had. .Zubaydah was a good find but not top tier al Qaeda material -- more like a "mailman," as noted by the FBI's Dan Coleman, a highly regarded agent. Also, according to Coleman, "Zubaydah was "certifiable, insane, a split personality," hardly a credible source of information. (Ron Suskind, The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of its Enemies Since 9/11.)

None of that mattered.

Abu Zubaydah had to become what the administration needed him to be: an al Qaeda mastermind imprisoned just months after 9/11 and a font of invaluable information vital to national security. His birth reflected an act of political desperation. The administration had nothing up to that point.

Never mind that his diary of ten years showed three distinct personalities commenting on "what people ate" and other mundane matters. George Tenet countered that "Agency psychiatrists eventually determined that he was using a sophisticated literary device to express himself.” Tenet did not specify which literary device that was.

The administration dismissed the experts' strong opinion that the prisoner had little more to offer. Quite the opposite, his silence was telling (to the White House). Abu Zubaydah had more to say. He was, after all, a high level al Qaeda mastermind. He had to have more to tell, much more. And more importantly, the administration's success in the war on terror was at stake.http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0804/S00239.htm

This is chess. But, in our electronic age, all will be revealed at some point and it will shock the
hell out of everybody when it happens.

Terrific post.

[HamdenRice]

37. At this point it's impossible to know which characterization of Zubaydah is real

and which is spin. Was he a mastermind who was downgraded to a crazy mailman when he gave the wrong answer?

Or was he a crazy mailman who was upgraded to a mastermind to justify his torture?

Good to hear from you!

[autorank]

47. He's quite a character

You're right, we can't know who he really was from a medical and technical standpoint. He's been so damaged by torture on 'roids that any validity to his self descriptions has banished. From self-reports, he's a goner. Reliable external evidence is the only hope.

Having said that, in the article linked, my analysis was that he was lower level and became a top terra figure because he had to be. He got caught and interrogated just before the WH went into a panic. He was who they said he was because they needed him. The more they tortured him, the more they justified this since either he was holding back (proof!) or his little gems were truth from on high since he produced so little (less is more).

I also lean in the "not so big" direction due to the FBI agents analysis. That agent had followed bin Laden for years, was a top interrogator (the civilized kind) and pointed out that Zubaydah had a fragmented personality - the three voices from his diary of years and saw himself. This was confirmed by the CIA in Tenets comment about this being "a literary device." He displayed those traits and, it's an easy leap (for me)to see him as incapable of top notch status.

But I'm open to change that assessment. It's hard to be objective when nine out of 9.1 times, assuming the worst from the Bush-Cheney crew. I'd take a day at the track anytime with those odds;)

Great post!

[pat_k]

16. No machinations or "politics" at work: Just beltway-blindness.

a.k.a. "impeachophobia" "group think"

The notion that "getting the truth out" accomplishes something, when the truth that mandated/mandates impeachment/prosecution has been known for years is irrational.

If they were not in complete denial of reality, boowing to the will of the fascists and protecting the torturers from prosecution, would simply be impossible. If Obama allowed himself to acknowledge the truth, he would have no option but to move for immediate prosecution.

Beltway blindness is a treatable illness, but the group think that drives the irrational rationalizations, dereliction, and irreconcilable "positions" is a powerful force. Not insurmountable. But powerful.

Group think isn't "thinking." It is characterized a consensus 'reality' based on spurious beliefs that cut 'insiders" off from the realities of their situation.

Group think is circular. Wrong-headed perceptions are both based on, and shape, a consensus 'reality' -- and that reality tends to become increasingly narrow and dysfunctional. Decisions aren't "made." A "chosen" course of action is dictated by dogma that eliminates options from the get go.

Right now, the consensus 'reality' of a Democratic Party 'insider' does not include the possibility of prosecuting Bush and Cheney. As it was with impeachment, prosecution is literally unthinkable. Impossible. "Everybody knows" it can't/won't/shouldn't happen.

They are incapable of thinking rationally about the facts because those facts call for an action that is inconceivable to them. The belief that prosecution can't/won't/shouldn't happen is a conclusion in search of a rationale. As long as prosecution is 'unthinkable' the stark realities that demand prosecution are 'unthinkable" too. Everything they do and say is shaped by their drive to evade any thought that would challenge the precept that prosecution can't/won't/shouldn't happen.

[flyarm]

17. The CIA Directors Protecting Themselves

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/18/the-cia-directors-protecting-themselves/

The CIA Directors Protecting Themselves
By: emptywheel Saturday April 18, 2009 8:52 am

The AP reports that along with John Deutsch and Michael Hayden, George Tenet and Porter Goss have criticized Obama's release of the torture memos.

Of course Tenet and Goss would criticize Obama's decision. Both of them are personally implicated by revelations in the memos.

As I noted (as did William Ockham--I stole his transcription), the May 30, 2005 memo makes it clear that people at CIA Headquarters ordered Abu Zubaydah to be waterboarded additional time(s)--for the 83rd time, perhaps?--even after interrogators working with him directly believed he was complying with their demands.

This is not to say that the interrogation program has worked perfectly. According to the IG Report, the CIA, at least initially, could not always distinguish detainees who had information but were successfully resisting interrogation from those who did not actually have the information. See IG report at 83-85. On at least one occasion, this may have resulted in what might be deemed in retrospect to have been the unnecessary use of enhanced techniques. On that occasion, although the on-scene interrogation team judged Zubaydah to be compliant, elements with CIA Headquarters still believed he was withholding information. See id, at 84. At the direction of CIA Headquarters interrogators, therefore used the waterboard one more time on Zubaydah. See id, at 84-85.

We can't pin this on Tenet directly, though we do know Bush was pressuring Tenet at the time to deliver some kind of intelligence that would substantiate Bush's public assertions that Abu Zubaydah was important within the Al Qaeda ranks.

"I said he was important," Bush reportedly told Tenet at one of their daily meetings. "You're not going to let me lose face on this, are you?" "No sir, Mr. President," Tenet replied. Bush "was fixated on how to get Zubaydah to tell us the truth,"

And in any case, we know that the one time when even the CIA agrees Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded "needlessly," it was done on the order of CIA headquarters under Tenet's leadership.

Also as I noted, the May 10, 2005 "Techniques" memo reveals that Abu Zubaydah's interrogator far exceeding OLC guidlines on how to administer waterboarding.

The IG Report noted that in some cases the waterboard was used with far greater frequency than initially indicated, see IG Report at 5, 44, 46, 103-04, and also that it was used in a different manner. See id. at 37 ("he waterboard technique ... was different from the technique described in the DoJ opinion and used in the SERE training. The difference was the manner in which the detainee's breathing was obstructed. At the SERE school and in the DoJ opinion, the subject's airflow is disrupted by the firm application of a damp cloth over the air passages; the interrogator applies a small amount of water to the cloth in a controlled manner. By contrast, the Agency Interrogator ... applied large volumes of water to a cloth that covered the detainee's mouth and nose. One of the psychologists/interrogators acknowledged that the Agency's use of the technique is different from that used in SERE training because it is "for real--and is more poignant and convincing.") see also id. at 14 n14.

Not only does this implicate Tenet--who was DCI at the time--for further mismanagement, but it implicates his successor Porter Goss.

Goss was in charge when the CIA--having been warned not to destroy the torture tapes--did so anyway. And this OLC memo provides proof that CIA had more to worry about than just that the identities of those depicted administering torture on the tapes would be revealed. We know that the tapes were clear evidence that the interrogators were breaking the law--exceeding even the expansive guidelines laid out in the Bybee Memo on how waterboarding should be used. This memo, in other words, proves what we already suspected--that the torture tape destruction served to obstruct justice.

And that destruction happened on Portor Goss' watch, even after he had been warned not to let the tapes be destroyed.

So its no wonder that Tenet and Goss would object to the release of these memos.

What is surprising, though, is that journalists wouldn't begin to explore why Tenet and Goss feel so strongly about it.

[flyarm]

18. The Torture Memos and the FBI-CIA Dispute

If I was the guys at the CIA ..I would try to hold up things as well..so does that mean.we delay further a Special Prosecutor being named???????? Does that mean we give possible war criminals immunity????????

I understand your point..but someone is in charge here..and that is we the people and the PRESIDENT..WE AND HE HAVE A JOB TO DO AND THAT IS TO SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH..AND THAT MEANS WE MUST HAVE A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, AND OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM MUST DO THEIR JOB , AND SEEK THE TRUTH, WHEREVER THAT LEADS AND PROSECUTE ANYONE WHO BROKE OUR LAWS AND THE LAWS OF OUR TREATIES.

If I was the guys at CIA I would be scared shitless too and it is fully understandable with some facts why they have played the delay game..

delay and deny.......that is all we have known for 8 + years..

In the meantime..the bad guys know damn well what has been done in our name...and it allows the bad guys to use this info as a recruiting tool and for propaganda.

And that makes no one safe.

The Nazi war criminals did everything they could to deflect the truth as well..

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/18/the-torture-memos-and-the-fbi-cia-dispute/#more-3967

The Torture Memos and the FBI-CIA Dispute
By: emptywheel Saturday April 18, 2009 5:52 pm

The FBI-CIA Dispute about Abu Zubdaydah

Now, one of the things I find most intriguing about Johnston's description of the squabble between FBI and CIA are the terms used to describes Abu Zubaydah's cooperation or lack thereof.

In Thailand, the new C.I.A. team concluded that under standard questioning Mr. Zubaydah was revealing only a small fraction of what he knew, and decided that more aggressive techniques were warranted.



F.B.I. agents on the scene angrily protested the more aggressive approach, arguing that persuasion rather than coercion had succeeded. But leaders of the C.I.A. interrogation team were convinced that tougher tactics were warranted and said that the methods had been authorized by senior lawyers at the White House.



We've long known that the FBI insisted they had gotten valuable information from Abu Zubaydah from persuasion. We've long known that the CIA focuses instead on purportedly valuable information they got through torture. But the chronology here is critical: FBI is interrogating Abu Zubaydah. CIA takes over and that new team--almost immediately, it seems--decides Abu Zubaydah is withholding information. At least partly because Abu Zubaydah had not produced any information about an impending attack, the CIA pushed for more coercion. But always, for the CIA partisans in this fight, there is the claim that "he was defiant and evasive until the approved procedures were used."
The torture memos offer one reason for that formula, I think--indeed, they explain the furor of this debate. Check out what the second paragraph of the Bybee Memo says:

Our advice is based upon the following facts, which you have provided to us. We also understand that you do not have any facts in your possession contrary to the facts outlined here, and this opinion is limited to these facts. If these facts were to change, this advice would not necessarily apply. Zubaydah is currently being held by the United States. The interrogation team is certain that he has additional information that he refuses to divulge. Specifically, he is withholding information regarding terrorist networks in the United Stares or in Saudi Arabia and information regarding plans to conduct attacks within the United States or against our interests overseas. Zubaydah has become accustomed to a certain level of treatment and displays no signs of willingness to disclose further information. Moreover, your intelligence indicates that there is currently level of "chatter" equal to that which preceded the September 11 attacks. In light of the information you believe Zubaydah has and the high level of threat you believe now exists, you wish to move the interrogations into what you have described as an "increased pressure phase."

That is, the entire memo pre-approving their actions is premised on CIA's representation that, first, Abu Zubaydah was evasive, and second, that he had more information. That's got to be one reason the CIA guys are so adamant on this point. It's their legal lifeline, and if that fact is challenged--as, indeed, the CIA guys knew it to be at the time--then their entire legal cover for their actions falls apart.

[truedelphi]

25. I am with you 100%, regardless of anything else.

On November 22nd 1963, it became obvious that our nation was NOT a nation of laws, but instead a political game played by insider operatives, against We The People.

Until we get a President with the gumption and moral fortitude to reach inside the Belly of The Beast and see just who, what how and where and why leads to everything else, none of us can count on much. Including our own physical and economic safety.

It is hard to forget the meaning of the CIA's actions in offering Hoover a memo stating that Hoover ought to examine and investigate the CIA and then report back to them as to what had gone on during the month of November 1963. Hoover's reply is to offer back a memo, released in 1978, relating to the CIA operative George Walker Bush.

Reading Hamden's piece, it also becomes clear why it was so important for Mainstream Media to attack Michael Moore for his work on the Saudi/9-11 link. After "Fahrenheit 9/11" was made, and out for consumption, you couldn't turn on the TV for months without somebody bashing Michael Moore.

And don't forget, as far as Afgfhanistan, a "last" chance occurred at a four-day meeting in Berlin in July 2001... According to the Pakistani representative at this meeting, Niaz Naik, our US representatives, trying to convince the Taliban to share power with US-friendly factions, said: "Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs." Naik said that he was told by Americans that "military action against Afghanistan would go ahead...before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest." The US attack on Afghanistan began, in fact, on October 7, which was as soon as the US military could get ready after 9/11.

[HamdenRice]

38. I agree the CIA chiefs are trying to protect themselves

What I don't know is whether it's just about torture or a whole range of other things.

[HamdenRice]

40. Thanks for highlighting that important insight -- the bureaucratic fighting

In this setting, the FBI's role is not just law enforcement of "bad guys" and interrogation; it is policing the government itself. The bigger picture is that while the FBI and CIA are supposed to be cooperating, the FBI is doing a lot of c.y.a. memo writing about the CIA possibly committing crimes.

The CIA has international information that it has not shared with the FBI, so it's telling the FBI we know he knows more, based on intelligence the FBI doesn't have.

This puts the DOJ OLC memos in an entirely different light.

Keep in mind that the FBI technically is part of the Justice Department.

So the coup de grace is the CIA went over the FBI's head to the DOJ OLC. They went to the FBI's "boss" and got permission to torture.

I hadn't thought about it that way till you raised these issues.

[TheKentuckian]

19. The only thing I "know" is that those that cannot/refuse to see the impact of even releasing

the memos is either blind or has been living in a different reality than the one I perceive. Just going this far speaks to a fortitude and commitment to serving the citizens that we rarely, if ever have enjoyed in the past. Obama may not be so impressive compared against the ideal but when contrasted against reality, the dude is out in front so far.

Perhaps, it is just too easy for some to move on to the next steps but this is HUGH!1!1! At least in my opinion.

[Cha]

20. Thanks,

Hamden.

[cascadiance]

21. Dusty Foggo might be another key to unlocking this puzzle...

He and Porter Goss were exposed in the Whitewater gambling parties that had Goss resign shortly afterward too... Anyway check this story of what is happening after Dusty Foggo got sentenced last month as the highest ranking CIA official to be punished.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/02/what-does-dusty-foggo-know-about-the-torture-tapes/

What Does Dusty Foggo Know about the Torture Tapes?
By: emptywheel Thursday April 2, 2009 10:22 am

The AP caught something rather curious.

Dusty Foggo, heading off to prison for his role in schemes involving Brent Wilkes, has a date to talk with John Durham, who is investigating the torture tape destruction, and because of that date, he'll get to put off reporting to prison for a week.

Mr. Foggo seeks this brief continuance because he has agreed to be interviewed by Special Prosecutor John H. Durham concerning the destruction of videotaped evidence by the Central Intelligence Agency. The interview is scheduled to be held in Washington, D.C. on April 8, 2009. However, Mr. Foggo is currently scheduled to report to USP McCreary in Pine Knot, Kentucky on April 7, 2009.

(snip)

Special Prosecutor Durham has consulted with the government and has informed counsel for Mr. Foggo that the prosecution team has no objection to the proposed continuance.

...

[DevonRex]

22. Brilliant. Some people here think in John Wayne terms just like Dubya.

They're like bulls in a china shop, apparently unaware that there are so many things to consider about this. They would charge forward, unthinking of teh damage that would be done if they had their way.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

23. My understanding is that he did not overrule them, nor did they overrule him. Rather, he just

considered all sides before acting.

[Laelth]

24. Interesting theory. k&r n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[tomp]

26. Or is it possible that they threatened something....

...or that they presented information about something very dire happening if the memos were released?"

here's something YOU should think deeply about. do you want a president who cowers and kowtows to threats?

here's something YOU should think deeply about. do you want to live in a country, can you defend a country that can allow this level of criminality within the government? are you willing to give your life for that country? do you think our armed forces should be fighting and dying for that country?

do i think obama could snap his fingers and change this? yes, if he had any balls (he doesn't), or if he wanted to (he doesn't).

one more thing. i fucking hate when people tell me i haven't been thinking deeply enough about something. take your arrogant bullshit and shove it.

[HamdenRice]

39. "do i think obama could snap his fingers and change this? yes,"

What if he doesn't think he can snap his fingers and accomplish this, but does want the truth to come out and some prosecutions. What would that process look like?

As for sounding condescending, were you aware of the Baer/Posner allegations about Zubaydah? My impression is that few mainstream news reports had mentioned Zubaydah's allegations and that therefore most DUers were not aware of them.

Were you aware of them?

[Time for change]

27. I don't understand

Why would they begin with the "really severe torture" after he gave out the "Rosetta Stone" information that they didn't like? What would that accomplish? If the motive was to prevent him from saying anything more about it, why wouldn't they just kill him? Wouldn't that have been a lot easier and also have a better chance of success?

[CJCRANE]

34. Who would kill him? Who would give the order?

How would the administration justify it?

[Time for change]

41. One of the same persons who tortured him and the one who gave the order to do that

Plenty of other of our prisoners were tortured to death. What difference would one more make to them?

But what was the point of escalating the torture at that point? Unless they killed him, how could they be sure that that would keep him quiet -- seems to me it would be more likely to have the opposite effect. It doesn't make any sense to me.

[CJCRANE]

42. He had already spilled the beans

using conventional techniques so there would be no use in killing him.

Better to torture him into garbage confessions to muddy the waters. You can then call him "insane" and pick and choose which confessions you want to use.

[HamdenRice]

43. That's the implication

And they now refer to him as both low level and crazy.

[truth2power]

28. I think a lot of people have ended up dead

because what they knew would reveal Cheney's part in 9/11. Just saying. I don't have proof, of course. Doesn't mean I can't speculate.

[Number23]

29. On one hand, I completely agree with your assertion that Obama simply cannot single-handedly

put torturers on trial, let alone change the last 8 years of U.S. policy on torture overnight.

On the other hand, I am disturbed by your contention that the CIA operates outside of the control and knowledge of the President. That idea would disturb me regardless of which party was in power.

Rec'ing for the interesting discussion.

[boppers]

51. This is DU. For some reason (likely past history), our intel is regularly demonized here.

Basically, here's how I see this one:

1. "Involuntary Intelligence Assets" are captured.
2. Those assets are then subjected to the same treatments that portions of our US military are treated to. (SERE, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival,_Evasion,_Resistance_and_Escape )

It's pretty straightforward at this point, BUT:
1. The "R" in SERE is pretty brutal.
2. People who don't have a military background are fairly horrified and repulsed by what kind of things happen in training, or in theater.
3. People with axes to grind point fingers.

The CIA is firmly in the control of the executive branch, but most people are not educated, or aware, of how things are actually happening.

So, when something looks ugly, fingers get pointed, commissions get formed, politicians make headlines, and eventually, things go back to how they were before. Along the way, intel is usually blamed, be it the FBI, CIA, NSA, whatever. Agency policy changes, outside contractors do work when governmental agencies are forbidden... and nothing really changes.

[Egnever]

30. What a tangled web

K&R

[Hutzpa]

31. For one thing reading between the lines

I would say all roads leads to Bush's White House and Cheney's Executive branch.

IMHO those tapes are still alive, one of those four are probably seating on it
or knows who is holding onto them.

The Pakistani joint is no surprise to most folks here on DU, we have known that
connection existed long before it was ok for others to join in.

Former legs can be very helpful, what an excellent keyboard player... Ello was
impress. Frequent flyer miles.

That meeting that recently took place has to be scrutinize and analyse....you
know what I'm talkin bout.

Oh! did I mention how crazy I am...my thoughts are my own....:tinfoilhat:

:tinfoilhat:

[Kablooie]

33. The demise of those princes sounds mightily like Cheney's secret hit squad.

[BigBearJohn]

35. I'm beginning to think that if the REAL truth of all this came out, it would be so outrageous that

there would be mass riots in the streets of America.

Thus, Obama's "lets look forward" attitude. Let the sleeping dogs lay were they will.

You want to open up that can of worms -- it will end up being worse than Pandora's box.

Think we have a mess now? You ain't seen nothing yet.

Leave the skeletons right where they are.



Just an idea. Not sure. But, it's something along these lines.

[Egnever]

36. the more I am thinking about this the more I am thinking the same.

[Kaleko]

44. I don't think there would be mass riots in the streets.

Americans are too fat and apathetic for that. But there will be shock waves going around the world, one after the other. And these shocks to the system would certainly destabilize markets even more than they already are. And of course there'll be law suits brought by everyone and their mother against various branches of the US government.

Extraordinary thread, Hamden! Wish I could recommend it, but I've found it too late.

[TBF]

45. Why not simply kill Zubaydah? But you may be on to something

with this. Most of the world already suspects that it was at least partially an inside job. It certainly would explain why it would be difficult for Obama to go forward with prosecution.

[Avalux]

46. I didn't see this post earlier. Very good, thorough post. K&R.

And if people would stop with the emotions and actually THINK, they'd think so too. :toast:

[masuki bance]

48. Sounds like a good conspiracy until you hear Obama say that

they had to be released anyway because of a pending lawsuit.

[boppers]

49. Chillingly Inhumane?

Did we read the same memos? My childhood was much, much, worse than this... (no, I'm not being flippant or glib, as I had a pretty rough/violent childhood).

If anything, I'd say that the concern the CIA (etc.) had was that we'd be disclosing some of the tricks long kept under our sleeves, with the main "hidden" trick being that we're allowed to make it *seem* like somebody's life is being threatened, or we're allowed to make it *seem* like an insane amount of mind/body-wracking injury is occurring... when nothing of the sort was happening (we can't tell them we're going to kill or severely injure them, but we don't have to *prevent* them from thinking it...).

Some Examples:
Walling: We were using fake walls to make it sound like people we're being thrown harder than they actually were, and we were putting the equivalent of collars on them to prevent injury.

Slapping: We had specifications for the slap to reduce injury, while promoting psychological effect.

Isolation Boxes: We were limiting the amount of time somebody spent in the dark, so as to not psychologically disrupt them too much.

Waterboarding: We had doctors present to ensure that drowning could not take place.

...Heck, even the "in a box with an insect" thing is bizarre, where a caterpillar (really) was recommended, so no actual injury could possibly, in any way, occur.

So, what would the CIA directors worry about? Oh, perhaps that adversaries around the world would learn that if somebody is being "tortured" by the US, it really means "they're constantly messing with you, and you just have to endure some really harsh bullshit for a while", and "they're watching the whole time to prevent any real, permanent, injuries". Similar problems popped up with Abu Gharaib (with the chilling addition of *actual injuries*, and soldiers were sent to prison for that).

This, I think, is one big secret ("we're not allowed to really hurt you") they didn't want leaked.

Another amusing secret (that I hadn't seen released yet, but it looks like it's out now) that we've used for years is "transferring" people around, so they think they're in different circumstances, with different people, and thus, may divulge different information (think about this the next time you hear about a "black site", or a prisoner claiming he was "transported to another country").

Along with this were other, minor secrets of interrogation such as how to monitor and validate compliance, how to establish a "way out" for subjects (to rationalize divulging information), how we provide "diaries" for people to "express themselves" (wink, wink), how we do full personality workups, how we try to maintain rapport with long term good cop/bad cop teams, etc.

As far as Al Queda being in bed with the ISI and the Saudis, that's old news. Nothing shocking, or even mildly interesting there. (At least to me, but I've been watching this all for a while). Someone who knows the Bin Laden family (it's huge), knowing high-ranking Saudi's?

Color me totally not shocked, or interested.

[Supersedeas]

50. the release of the memos was pursuant to a COURT ORDER, the amount of redaction was a Presidential

call....maybe