Scott Horton: New Holder memo summarizes CIA meetings with WH re: torture; identifies participants

[seafan]

Straight to the Top

By Scott Horton
April 24, 2009

The torture trail starts and ends in the White House. That is perhaps the most inescapable conclusion to be drawn from the flurry of documents released in the last week—first the OLC memoranda, then a newly declassified report of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and finally an amazing document that Attorney General Eric Holder released yesterday, which has still gained little attention. The Holder note presents a summary of CIA interaction with the White House in connection with the approval of the torture techniques that John Yoo calls the “Bush Program.” Holder’s memo refers to the participants by their job titles only, but John Sifton runs it through a decoder and gives us the actual names. Here’s a key passage:

“(The) CIA’s Office of General Counsel (this would include current Acting CIA General Counsel (John Rizzo) met with the Attorney General (John Ashcroft), the National Security Adviser (Condoleezza Rice), the Deputy National Security Adviser (Stephen Hadley), the Legal Adviser to the National Security Council (John Bellinger), and the Counsel to the President (Alberto Gonzales) in mid-May 2002 to discuss the possible use of alternative interrogation methods (on Abu Zubaydah) that differed from the traditional methods used by the U.S. military and intelligence community. At this meeting, the CIA proposed particular alternative interrogation methods, including waterboarding.”

The report continues to implicate more Bush officials: “On July 13, 2002, according to CIA records, attorneys from the CIA’s Office of General Counsel (including Rizzo) met with the Legal Adviser to the National Security Council (Bellinger), a Deputy Assistant Attorney General from OLC (likely John Yoo), the head of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice (Michael Chertoff), the chief of staff to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (Kenneth Wainstein), and the Counsel to the President (Alberto Gonzales) to provide an overview of the proposed interrogation plan for Abu Zubaydah.”

It makes clear that sign-off for torture comes from Condoleezza Rice, acting with the advice of her ever-present lawyer, John Bellinger. Another figure making a key appearance is an Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel named M. Edward Whelan III–presumably the same Ed Whelan who is presently melting his keyboard with defenses of the torture-enablers at National Review. (UPDATE: I note that Andrew Sullivan also reported on the appearance of Whelan in the memo, but Whelan responded with a categorical denial that he was involved. This suggests that the memo’s chronology is incorrect and requires some clarification.) The central role played by Rice and Bellinger helps explain the State Department’s abrupt about-face on international law issues related to torture immediately after Rice became Secretary of State and Bellinger became Legal Adviser. It also makes clear that Vice President Cheney and President Bush were fully informed of what has happened and approved.

This disclosure comes after the Senate Armed Services Committee’s detailed report, which debunks almost all the claims that Bush Administration officials have thrown up to put investigators off the trail of the torture policy. The claim that the decision to introduce torture was done to accommodate interrogators who were frustrated by their inability to get results, for instance, is belied by the fact that the White House was busy pursuing torture techniques and authority to introduce them before any prisoners had yet been taken.

But each of these disclosures points again to a great mass of potential evidence remaining securely hidden. Colin Powell himself has repeatedly noted that the National Security Council was the center of activity with respect to the introduction of torture and that it carefully documents its internal processes with minutes and records. He urged those pursuing the issue to press for full disclosure of these materials. His guidance (which is remarkable among other things because he will himself be at the center of the inquiry) is revealed by the Holder memorandum to be spot-on.

President Obama and several of his senior advisors are now plainly concerned about the torture issue and the momentum it has achieved. They are troubled that it will seize center stage in Washington and disrupt the president’s ability to implement his agenda. These concerns are reasonable to some extent, but in fact that very concern provides a very good reason to remove the next steps in this crisis from the political process. Unlike the Beltway chatterboxes who fill our airwaves, most Americans appreciate the importance of the torture question. It is not a matter of partisan intrigue. It is a fundamental question of national identity and principle. And this points to a two-pronged solution. First a blue-ribbon commission should be constituted to get to the bottom of what happened, to declassify and publish the still hidden documents concerning the NSC process and what went on in the Justice Department, the Pentagon, and the CIA. The commission should take a long, hard look at Richard Cheney’s self-serving claims that “torture works.” And it should try to steer the country to a solution of these questions that restores a national consensus. If you support the idea of an accountability commission, take a few seconds to go on line here and note your endorsement of the proposal. The second prong will be a prosecutor who can take a look at all the facts and decide who should be charged for criminal wrongdoing. We know now that the White House considers it politically “inconvenient” to do this. So the big open question is whether we have an attorney general who enforces the law, or a Democratic version of Alberto Gonzales. That will become apparent soon enough.

[seemslikeadream]

1. Straight to the Top

[ShortnFiery]

2. Colin Powell.

It was reported that Powell, as a Major, helped cover-up some of the troop's "bad behaviors" (My Lai) perhaps Karma is now coming back to kick him in the ass?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre

Colin Powell, then a 31-year-old Army Major, was charged with investigating the letter, which did not specifically reference My Lai (Glen had limited knowledge of the events there). In his report Powell wrote: "In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between American<25> soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent." Powell's handling of the assignment was later characterized by some observers as "whitewashing" the atrocities of My Lai.<26> In May 2004, Powell, then United States Secretary of State, told CNN's Larry King, "I mean, I was in a unit that was responsible for My Lai. I got there after My Lai happened. So, in war, these sorts of horrible things happen every now and again, but they are still to be deplored."<27>

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

26. The INTENT to Commit War Crimes is Clear

“(The) CIA’s Office of General Counsel (this would include current Acting CIA General Counsel (John Rizzo) met with the Attorney General (John Ashcroft), the National Security Adviser (Condoleezza Rice), the Deputy National Security Adviser (Stephen Hadley), the Legal Adviser to the National Security Council (John Bellinger), and the Counsel to the President (Alberto Gonzales) in mid-May 2002 to discuss the possible use of alternative interrogation methods (on Abu Zubaydah) that differed from the traditional methods used by the U.S. military and intelligence community. At this meeting, the CIA proposed particular alternative interrogation methods, including waterboarding.”

http://www.alternet.org/story/13055?page=2

Bush 'Unsigns' War Crimes Treaty
By Jim Lobe, AlterNet. Posted May 6, 2002.


And this gem from kpete
Disappeared" Docs & Bushco's UNSIGNING Of The ROME STATUTE

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2728417

of MARC GROSSMAN on the UNSIGNING of the ROME STATUTE.

This page has been "disappeared" from the State Dept. web site as well. The cache also has page 7 not visable but it comes out on copy/paste.

[seafan]

31. Thanks for those very timely links. Dots are connecting themselves now.

We have us some WAR CRIMINALS.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

32. ..._..._...

[eShirl]

3. k&r

[bleever]

4. Boom.

Still, though, this repetition of the idea that CIA originated the request to use these techniques.

We know that isn't true.

[seafan]

13. From what I've read, it was the CIA's *contractors* who wanted these methods of torture.

Just imho...


The CIA was balking at The Bush Program. Looks like ol' Bush and Cheney outsourced their torture tactics, enabling Bush to claim, "The US doesn't torture."



September 6, 2006

Couric asked the President if he could give any indication about the kind of information he was able to glean from the "high-valued targets."

"We uncovered a potential anthrax attack on the United States. Or the fact the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had got somebody to line up people to fly airlines, to crash airlines into I think the West Coast, or somewhere in America, and these would be Southeast Asians," Mr. Bush said.

"This is pretty rich data that has been declassified, so that I'm capable of telling America the importance of the interrogation program, and I'm going to call upon Congress to make sure the interrogators has the capacity to do so without breaking the law. See we're not interrogating now, because CIA officials feel like the rules are so vague that they cannot interrogate without being tried as war criminals. That's irresponsible."

Couric asked Mr. Bush if this is a tacit acknowledgement that the way these detainees were handled was wrong.

"No. Not at all. It's a tacit acknowledgement that we're doing smart things to get information to protect the American people," the President said. "I've said to the people that we don't torture, and we don't."

The real question for me is, who were these contractors? We need to haul them in.

[bleever]

25. That is an excellent question. Who WERE these contractors?

Somewhere the is a massive cloud of financial liability hanging over the entities involved here. Just as Jepperson can be sued for conducting rendition flights, some corporation or corporations can face lawsuits of massive proportion.

[watrwefitinfor]

38. Ask Oliver North. n/t

[defendandprotect]

36. Well, they went at this torture stuff right after 9/11...it was immediate . .

and though they may have known quite well what large contractors would be invited --

the largest contractors KBR/Blackwater might have known immediately as well.

Right now there are 45,000 contractors in Iraq.

I think there was a close relationship between these larger contractors and WH ---

and I'm thinking 9/11 MIHOP.

Don't forget Bush got on wiretapping immediately on taking office --- SEVEN MONTHS BEFORE

9/11 -

and so too the Patriot Act was ready to go immediately after 9/11!!!

A lot of pre-planning for all of this?

Then they would have had to have known what was going to be coming down.

In fact, "How could they not have known?"

[DevonRex]

5. The info is good but I disagree with his "blue-ribbon commission" idea.

[stillcool]

11. This article makes a good argument..

for the process that produces the best results. Of course it's only one prosecutor's opinion but it makes sense.

http://www.truthout.org/042009R

[DevonRex]

15. I agree wholeheartedly. It should be a normal JD investigation for now.

And that allows Congress to do what it wishes to do. A commission plus a special prosecutor only delays the process and they keep the public out.

[eleny]

12. I have mixed feelings about this

A commission could be public with their interviews aired on tv. A special prosecutor's investigation is conducted behind closed doors. I suppose I'd be for a commission but that depends on who is on the commission. We don't have a say in that. I'm torn.

[DevonRex]

16. I'm for congressional hearings, if they want to do that, and a normal

JD investigation. These things really do work. The 9/11 Commission turned into nothing but a buddy-buddy "we can work together and do nothing" club.

[eleny]

24. Agreed - congressional hearings are aired to the public

And that's important as it was during Watergate.

[DevonRex]

29. You are exactly right. The public needs to see and hear for themselves.

[Hubert Flottz]

22. Me too...whitewash can't cover up the sickness behind these

war crimes. We don't need another sham like the 9/11 commission. The closest those "honorable" liars and political pimps ever got to "Blue Ribbon" was in a long neck bottle!

[Supersedeas]

27. say here....allow Holder to investigate this and release as much as he can

[lunatica]

6. Did the dike just break?

[BlueJessamine]

7. k&r! n/t

[chill_wind]

8. K & R to the nth. And strongly favor a discussion of a 2-prong solution.

eom

[chill_wind]

9. And some more down Media Memory Lane- WAPO & ABC April 2008

A year ago now...

"As the national security adviser, Rice chaired the meetings, which took place in the White House Situation Room."
The discussions started after the CIA captured al-Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah in the spring of 2002..

White House Torture Advisers


By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, April 10, 2008; 1:20 PM

Top Bush aides, including Vice President Cheney, micromanaged the torture of terrorist suspects from the White House basement, according to an ABC News report aired last night.

Discussions were so detailed, ABC's sources said, that some interrogation sessions were virtually choreographed by a White House advisory group. In addition to Cheney, the group included then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, then-secretary of state Colin Powell, then-CIA director George Tenet and then-attorney general John Ashcroft.

At least one member of the club had some qualms. ABC reports that Ashcroft "was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.


"According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: 'Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.'"

full article-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/04/10/BL2008041002069.html

[mod mom]

10. Why hasn't Scott Horton won a Pullitzer yet? rec'd

[Echo In Light]

14. "before any prisoners had yet been taken"

[starroute]

17. Kenneth Wainstein

I ran into Wainstein's name a couple of years ago when poking around for clues concerning the US Attorney scandal. Here's what was up on his White House bio at the time:

"Mr. Wainstein was confirmed on October 7, 2005 to be the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. He served as the Interim United States Attorney prior to his confirmation. Prior to his appointment as Interim United States Attorney in May of 2004, Mr. Wainstein served at FBI Headquarters. He was Chief of Staff to Director Robert S. Mueller, III, from March 2003 to May 2004 and General Counsel of the FBI from July 2002 to March 2003. From August 2001 to July 2002, he served as Director of the Justice Department's Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, where he provided oversight and support to the 94 United States Attorneys' Offices around the country. Ken was the Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia between April and August of 2001."


And here's some stuff from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/22/AR2006092201515.html

Saturday, September 23, 2006

The Justice Department yesterday appointed Jeffrey A. Taylor, the counselor to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, to be U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

Taylor succeeds Kenneth L. Wainstein in running the largest U.S. attorney's office in the country. For now, Taylor will be interim U.S. attorney; President Bush can nominate him to take the job, subject to Senate confirmation.

Wainstein was confirmed by the Senate on Thursday to a new post in the Justice Department, assistant attorney general for national security, after his nomination had been held up for months by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.). Levin had been seeking FBI documents relating to its agents' concerns about mistreatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay while Wainstein was a top aide to FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III.

[seafan]

19. Bob Graham had an encounter with Kenneth Wainstein as well.

More on Kenneth Wainstein:


From an interview with Graham, September 8, 2004

In the book, you describe being furious with the FBI for blocking your committee's attempts to interview that paid FBI informant. You write that the panel needed the bureau to deliver a congressional subpoena to the informant because he was in the FBI's protective custody and could not be located without the bureau's cooperation. But the FBI refused to help. What happened? And what do you think the bureau was trying to hide?

.....

Graham identifies Wainstein as the uncooperative FBI representative who refused to allow delivery of Graham's subpoena for this principle actor's testimony about the events leading up to 9-11. This informant just happened to have lived in San Diego with two of the 9-11 hijackers.


Where is Wainstein now?

[starroute]

21. Wainstein is now representing one of the "Stevens Six"

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/04/stevens-six-lawyering-up-big-time.html?cid=6a00d83451d94869e201157045ac99970b

April 22, 2009
Stevens Six Lawyering Up -- Big Time

The aftermath of the now-dismissed case of former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens -- a court-ordered criminal contempt investigation of the six lawyers who handled the prosecution -- is drawing some of Washington’s heaviest hitters into the fray.

Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. dropped the case against Stevens earlier this month, and U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan appointed Henry Schuelke III to investigate Public Integrity Section chief William Welch II; his principal deputy, Brenda Morris; Public Integrity Prosecutors Nicholas Marsh and Edward Sullivan; and Alaska-based assistant U.S. attorneys Joseph Bottini and James Goeke.

Patton Boggs partner Robert Luskin, who guided former Bush adviser Karl Rove through grand jury proceedings in the case involving outed CIA officer Valerie Plame, is representing Marsh, Luskin tells The BLT. Luskin is known for his work supervising the ABSCAM investigation -- which resulted in the convictions of six members of Congress on corruption charges. More recently, he represented Massey Energy’s Aracoma Coal Co. subsidiary, which admitted to criminal safety violations that caused the deaths of two Logan County coal miners in a January 2006 fire.

Bottini has selected O’Melveny & Myers partner Kenneth Wainstein, a former U.S. attorney in the District, who most recently served as President George W. Bush’s homeland security adviser. Wainstein was the first assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, and he has close ties to Mary Patrice Brown, the new head of the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, which is handling a parallel investigation into the prosecutors’ conduct.

[seafan]

37. Thanks for that info. Not surprising at all. n/t

[Supersedeas]

23. despite Wainstein's involvement, the FBI backed away from the program; Chertoff's involvement could

be explored more thoroughly.

[Soylent Brice]

18. seriously, if you're shocked raise your hand.

[JDPriestly]

20. Paul O'Neill described the organization of the cabinet meetings as allowing for

little free discussion. To understand a little about how the Bush administration worked, it is important to return to Ron Suskind's book The Price of Loyalty. Decisions were not generally reached after discussion and brainstorming, I gather from that book. There was not a lot of openness to different points of view. Decisions were sort of dictated from the top down. I gather that even within the Bush administration it was kind of an opaque process, not transparent at all. It may be that low-level people suggested using torture techniques, but, based on the experience that Paul O'Neill describes in that book, the actual decision to use those techniques was probably made at the very top.

Of course, what we don't know, and I admittedly put on my tin-foil hat here, is who was the real power behind the Bush throne. Was it Bush and Cheney? Was it someone outside the official government? Was it a group of people?

I don't have time to re-read that book right now, but it seems to me it would be worthwhile to revisit it if someone has the time to glance at the few sections on the topic of the management style in the Bush administration.

[defendandprotect]

35. Interesting post . . . though I'm not familiar with the book ...

"The Price of Loyalty" by Ron Susskind ...

And I thought this also interesting to ponder . . .

Of course, what we don't know, and I admittedly put on my tin-foil hat here, is who was the real power behind the Bush throne. Was it Bush and Cheney? Was it someone outside the official government? Was it a group of people?

Most think it was Cheney.
But I've also been fascinated to read that many think that right after the shooting of
Reagan, Bush became president.
Sometimes ways and means are found by accident -- sometimes the pattern is simply repeated--???

LBJ evidently drove himself insane while he was still in the White House --
Pierre Salinger says that he and Bill Moyers understood LBJ to be "clinically psychotic."
I've never heard Bill Moyers talk about that, however.

Nixon, as well, was pretty much in la, la land as he left the White House . . .
and Summers says that he was once or more chased through the White House into the basement
and back again in state of delusion as he ran from Secret Service.
Before the end, he was pre-empted on giving any instructions to military for nuking anyone --
any orders he gave were to be checked elsewhere!
Supposedly there were actual armed troops in the basement at one point, ready to be brought
out onto the WH lawn in event the anti-war movement felt too threatening to Nixon.

Basically, right now Cheney looks very worried --- he may be having his own LBJ/Nixon moments!

I wouldn't discount Bushes as large part of TPB -- I think Cheney was the workhorse,
the thinker, the doer of dark deeds for those he served. Someone may now be ready
to let him take the fall?

Cheney seemd to practially be dictating to the CIA at some points -- and also seems to have
some odd close connection to them now? Evidently he's living nearby.

CIA power and its connections to elite have to be considered. Plus where they get their
money for private deals?

Who's profiting from the Drug War - and the financial corruption/criminality?

[leveymg]

28. Anybody who thinks that any ol this is going to be neat and easy, is in for

a very messy surprise.

This is not to be trifled with or rushed into. But, finally, it looks like justice is possible.

[Seldona]

30. K&R

Looks to me like a pretty much open and shut case, so to speak. I am sure there would be complications, like there are with any prosecution, but for the most part it would be a cakewalk to show conspiracy to commit these crimes.

They would have just loved to toss out the entire rulebook, I am sure.

[ProSense]

33. Some people are uncomfortable with the truth

Kerry tell it like it is: Detainee Photos Could Be Terrorist Propaganda, But Truth Is Important

[defendandprotect]

34. Appreciate the OPENNESS by WH in letting this information out . . .

and I think it is very helpful in allowing the public to understand what has actually

been going on ---

The very fact that something is called "alternative interrogation methods" suggests

that there was an attempt to divert from Geneva Accords -- i.e., self-evident!

Again, I'd repeat what a very wise poster here outlined for us . . .

"If you approve torture being used, you are also approving it to be used on our own soldiers."

The poster said it better --!!


But I'd also include that thinking and you can substitute "atomic bomb" for torture.

[Gregorian]

39. Perhaps the Hague can lend us a hand.

I personally don't think there is anything more important than this plague on our country. Not the economy, not health care. And I say that because not only can we do multiple tasks simultaneously, but the economy does not respond to what happens in Washington the way this criminal investigation will. Not only that but I also believe in karma. Clean up the mess and the rest will follow.

So Barbara, how do you feel about your son now?

[seafan]

42. 'Barbara Bush, are you proud of your sons now?'

James Estrian/The New York Times

Mary K. Porta, who has been an almost constant presence at the protests, said she was trying to respect the family's wishes to keep the atmosphere calm and prayerful.





Dave Giannino (L) of St. Petersburg, Florida shouts about Florida Governor Jeb Bush's involvement thus far in the Terri Schiavo case outside of the Woodside Hospice in Pinellas Park, Florida, March 23, 2005. The US Supreme Court refused to take the case, Thursday, March 24, 2005.

"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths, ... Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?" ---Barbara Bush, March 18, 2003, on Good Morning America

March 19, 2003: George W. Bush commits aggressive, unjustified war against Iraq.

[Gregorian]

43. Amen

I am hopeful we are still an intelligent and caring race. I just don't think people know what they're doing. I believe that seemingly benign acts in a modern society can have devilish effects.

Beautiful mind... Oh brother. That is not benign. And it's time for us to rid the nation of the Bush plague.

[SkyDaddy7]

40. Democratic version of Alberto Gonzales...

WHATEVER!?!?

[felinetta]

41. Tlhe Bush Program - says it all. He must held accountable in

addition to all the others!