Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Kevin Drum:

So here's what the tapes would have shown: not just that we had brutally tortured an al-Qaeda operative, but that we had brutally tortured an al-Qaeda operative who was (a) unimportant and low-ranking, (b) mentally unstable, (c) had no useful information, and (d) eventually spewed out an endless series of worthless, fantastical “confessions” under duress. This was all prompted by the president of the United States, implemented by the director of the CIA, and the end result was thousands of wasted man hours by intelligence and and law enforcement personnel.

Nice trifecta there. And just think: there's an entire political party in this country that still thinks this is OK.

Scott Horton, The Scapgoat at Harpers, spotted via Jim Henley, Maxwell Smart Acted Alone!. Lots and lots of good stuff — here's only a taste:

When the Bush Administration trots out arguments and finds that even Michelle Malkin (“it is bad) and Ed Morrissey (“frankly, the timing stinks”) have trouble swallowing them, it’s in serious trouble. And that was the case here. The claims that the policy was adopted for legitimate reasons didn’t pass a smell test; even “the base” wasn’t buying them.

All of which meant: time for a new strategy. So what works better that a good scapegoating?

But is the scapegoating strategy even marginally plausible? No, it isn’t. First, we have the opening volley—everything was disclosed and approved in advance. Even the oversight committees were briefed on this. Everything was kosher. So know we’re being told that they briefed Rockefeller and Harman, but not President Bush. Does anybody believe that for even a second? No, it’s not plausible. And all this relates to an issue that has involved the White House like no other issue since the Bush Administration began. The highly coercive interrogation program—the “Program”—was Dick Cheney’s baby. He lobbied the CIA to adopt it and turned to extraordinary measures to overcome their initial reluctance. (This is how we got the torture memoranda at Justice, after all). And let’s keep in mind that this is a White House in love with secrecy and the destruction of internal documents which might prove compromising. (Think: Dick Cheney and his visitors’ logs; think: Karl Rove’s missing emails, now put at 10,000,000 and counting).

And the very correct ending:

The CIA tape destruction presents another test for the Rule of Law in America. It’s a test for Congressional oversight, and it’s a test for the Department of Justice. Michael Mukasey will have to decide whether he considers himself to be the nation’s principal law enforcement officer, or a loyal retainer of George W. Bush. He’s only a few days on the job and the path has clearly divided.

The most likely and simplest explanation for why the CIA destroyed the tapes of its torture sessions with Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri — even in the face of strong reasons not to — is that the tapes showed evidence of serious crimes. If you were a CIA person caught literally red-handed, would you rather be at risk of obstruction of justice charges, or of charges of torture, war crimes, or attempted murder or who knows what. That simple decision tree leads straight to burning the evidence.

But in the name of baseless speculation, I offer you the following more baroque hypothesis. The not infallible David Johnston tells us that,

… in April or May of 2002, officials briefed on the classified details of the case said, C.I.A. officials expressed dissatisfaction with the pace of the interviews and concluded that Mr. Zubaydah was revealing only a little of what he knew. C.I.A. interrogators, led by an outside consultant, ratcheted up the use of aggressive techniques.

Outside consultant? Where does the CIA go to get expert help torturing people? I doubt somehow that they went to Haliburton or even to Blackwater USA. They may have had an aging contra or El Salvadorian death squaddist on the payroll, but the real up-to-date expertise is probably in the Middle East.

So maybe part of what the CIA was hiding was that they got a Syrian, or a Saudi, or even an Israeli, to help them?