I’ve studied intelligence matters since I was in middle school. The whole topic of clandestine operations has always fascinated me. And I know that we have a real problem when it comes to divulging the secrets and abuses of the Bush administration.
You can think about it like this. When you try to recruit someone to spy for you against his own government your number one obstacle is not overcoming their innate patriotism. You’ve probably already identified some weakness on their part (substance addiction, homosexuality, a sick child, etc.) that you can exploit. Your number one obstacle is convincing them that you can keep the arrangement a secret and that you can take care of them if anything goes wrong. If your government cannot keep a secret, them you’ll have a hell of a time convincing anyone to spy for you. Therefore, it’s bad idea for the government to discuss clandestine operations in public.
What’s true about recruiting agents is tenfold more true about foreign intelligence services. You cannot expose a foreign intelligence service as being complicit in torture, for example, and think that they will ever cooperate with you again on sensitive intelligence matters.
That’s the legacy that the Bush administration left us. If we have a full airing of the black sites, the extraordinary renditions, and the ‘enhanced interrogations’, it will severely damage our vital relationships with several foreign intelligence services. And that can really and truly put our country at unnecessary risk.
It’s a bit of a no-win situation, and you get disputes like this:
A fierce internal battle within the White House over the disclosure of internal Justice Department interrogation memos is shaping up as a major test of the Obama administration’s commitment to opening up government files about Bush-era counterterrorism policy.
As reported by NEWSWEEK, the White House last month had accepted a recommendation from Attorney General Eric Holder to declassify and publicly release three 2005 memos that graphically describe harsh interrogation techniques approved for the CIA to use against Al Qaeda suspects. But after the story, U.S. intelligence officials, led by senior national-security aide John Brennan, mounted an intense campaign to get the decision reversed, according to a senior administration official familiar with the debate. “Holy hell has broken loose over this,” said the official, who asked not to be identified because of political sensitivities.
Brennan is a former senior CIA official who was once considered by Obama for agency director but withdrew his name late last year after public criticism that he was too close to past officials involved in Bush administration decisions. Brennan, who now oversees intelligence issues at the National Security Council, argued that release of the memos could embarrass foreign intelligence services who cooperated with the CIA, either by participating in overseas “extraordinary renditions” of high-level detainees or housing them in overseas “black site” prisons.
Brennan succeeded in persuading CIA Director Leon Panetta to become “engaged” in his efforts to block release, according to the senior official.
John Brennan is 100% correct. Unfortunately, Eric Holder is also 100% correct. We actually need to know what was done in our name. But, we also have to protect our relationships.
You can hate Bush and Cheney all the more for putting us in this situation, but you shouldn’t condemn the people who are unfortunate enough to have responsibility for cleaning this mess up.
Even if we all agree that we should never repeat the mistakes and sins of the Bush administration, we still have to maintain our relationships.
No. Just no. You’ve said a lot of wrong-headed, sycophantic things these last few months. This is beyond that.
I don’t care what these people have done for us. They have comitted atrocities. In the end, they have to be punished. We won’t be safe by allowing torturers to come home and become police officers. We will simply become their prey. We can’t let them become politicians. We can’t let them become teachers. These people aren’t socialized anymore. Once you go down the roads they have gone, you can not come back. These people will do these same things to our children if we let them back here. You have to know that.
I read this site for a long time. I’m not going to keep doing that if it’s going to devolve into torture apologetics.
you have severe reading comprehension difficulties.
It’s not reading comprehension, it’s that your words defy their worldview – torture is always wrong and those who deal in it must always be brought to justice no matter the costs. You can make the most rational argument for your position but if it defies their core convictions then you’ll be be about as effective as Zell’s spit wads against a phalanx of tanks. The same thing happens whenever the discussion turns to an emotionally-charged subject – abortion, Israel, etc. – and I’m learning not to bother.
People will believe what they want to believe – don’t try to confuse them with facts.
Well, torture is always wrong and those that deal in it should be brought to justice. No argument there. Things are complicated by the fact that, while the Bush administration is gone, the people that cooperated with them are not. I am fully in favor of prosecuting Bush officials. But if I’m John Brennan, my job is to protect our ability to gather foreign intelligence. Holder and Brennan are both doing their jobs. That’s why I said they are both 100% right.
True, but as for the denizens hereabouts it’s a matter of principle for them, and anything that lets Bush’s people get away with torture is categorically unacceptable.
They’re not concerned about the fallout from throwing back the sheets and letting the world see our soiled linen – and who we’ve been in bed with – they want to see BushCo in toto frog marched before the Hague, no matter the consequences, and I can certainly relate. You make sense on this point and I agree with you, but I am certain that we are in the minority here.
I would fully support frog-marching top echelon Bush officials into our own courts and prosecuting them for war crimes. But that isn’t the key issue of debate in this article. This is about whether the Obama administration should obfuscate about what other countries did and about the identities of people that were involved.
And there are solid arguments for doing so.
I mean, if there is a solid argument against Congress passing a resolution recognizing the Armenian Genocide because it would damage relations with Turkey, there are certainly solid arguments against outing foreign intelligence officers for their complicity in crimes we asked them to perform.
….Boo, you just cant separate them like that that you have…they are the same one…I think you have to discern whether they are they same or not…just because they are of foreign nations, and that they did our jobs for us..that is like contracting the damn job out…that is that they were working for us…so I see it like they and ours are the same.
If they are American or Moroccan does not matter to me they are responsible. They tortured!!! plain and simple. Just put yourself into someone else’s shoes for one minute….and you are not guilty of anything…but you’re tortured to get something that you did not have just because a man called bush or cheney said you did..now how would that make you feel…I would feel for you, not for bush or cheney or their cohort’s…no matter cia or foreign persons. this was not a uniformed service that we had in our mist…they were civilians….that is and of itself makes the difference. some of what our military did was uncalled for as well.{such as holding someones family until you came forth for arrest} there is a law against that…worldwide. Now can we get serious and start to hold the ones responsible for this mess accountable here in the US and get beyond this and start to build anew. This has to be done before we can move forward as a nation. I am sorry if it should include some foreign ppls…that is the problem of it all…but that is just the way it is…
I hope I have made myself clear on this matter. I read a lot here but this time I must take a stand. I have to open my mouth…you know me…;o),
I think this is way beyond you and I both to try to make much sense of it…but I do think of it and what it is gonna take to make things turn around. The rule of law is what really matters anyhow…now what someone country or someone in that counry should think of ours any how. Look at how we are thinking of NK and how they are doing things. Remember what the Turks use to do until we all got mad at them and made the stop the maddness they once did…I do and I am still bitter ove that one. I do not trust Turkey …do you??? Oh well, just my .02 cents worth….
those who helped our torture and rendition program may be allies but they aren’t blameless innocents. no one twisted their arms and they knew there could be blowback. everyone needs to man up and take responsibility. it’s not their relationships they’re worried about, it’s their reputations, which are now worth less than a aig derivative. burying the abuses amounts to a bailout for the intelligence agencies.
The pragmatic thing to do is decide which outcome does more damage to the country.
Obama can refuse to release the memos, in which case when countries like Spain continue to proceed with their own investigations on how their citizens were victims of “rendition” and then ask for him to extradite Gonzo and John Yoo, well, that’s not exactly going to do wonders for our relationships with other countries either.
On the other hand, releasing the memos would go a long way towards showing the rest of the world that we believe in the rule of law and the Geneva Conventions. It may even defuse the Spanish investigation and head off others.
There’s also the argument that the information will be leaked at some point anyway, and that Obama should control that leak by doing it now.
Having said that, this morning the Brits announced their own “truth and reconciliation” investigation into torture and human rights abuses.
As you can see there by that last sentence, the Brits are struggling with the intelligence question as well…but that’s not stopping them from launching a full inquiry.
At this point I don’t see how Obama can now continue to refuse to hold similar hearings. It needs to be done. Period. Redact the methods and sources if you must, but after this, there’s no longer any excuse.
The Brits are doing the right thing. We need to as well.
Is there any evidence that all this spying has actually made the USA safer? None that I am aware of. But maybe those wonderful things can never be revealed because they would compromise security. How convenient!
But there is abundant evidence that we have used clandestine activities to do very wrong things including torture, toppling of governments, supporting governments that torture, supporting multi-national corporations that abuse their workers, blowing up innocent civilians and their homes and workplaces, dousing people with poisons, etc.
The ends do not justify the means.
There is no choice but to hold those responsible to account. Exposing the co-conspirators in rendition and torture is no big sacrifice.
This is what it did to US credibility (h/t for link to Lady Libertine):
Seized U.S. journalists become ‘hostages’ in N. Korea maneuvering
Sad day when the North-Koreans can laugh at US human rights record and be right…
And more damaging than cleaning house.
Maddow had this on last night. Spouse and I looked at each other and said, “Well, this it what comes of rendition, torture and holding people without charges.” It’s the reason that our troops are all schooled in the Geneva Conventions during basic training. Because they are BASIC.
To be clear, ask, I am not saying that we shouldn’t hold people accountable. I’m with Holder in releasing memos about what American officials did. Where I am wary is in whether it is wise to, for example, turn over evidence for trial that would implicate a foreign government.
We had that situation recently in a case involving Morocco. The Obama administration refused to turn over evidence and cited the state secrets privilege. Many people assumed that Obama was just perpetuating Bush’s non-transparency policies, but he was actually protecting our relationship with Morocco, which is one of our more valuable partners in foreign intelligence.
If you had to make the decision between allowing for justice for a victim of Bush’s policies and destroying our ‘word’ with Morocco (and, by extension, with all allied intelligence services), what would you do?
If you don’t think we get anything out of our liaison relationships, you’ll probably side with full disclosure, but no intelligence official could responsibly take that side of the debate.
This is the legacy of Bush. We’re left with dozens of no-win situations where one or another important principle must be sacrificed in the interest of something else.
Well, I really have no knowledge of how productive the exchanges with the services you mention are. I imagine that no one tells the full truth in that line of business (and may also lace the good stuff with crap).
We’re left with dozens of no-win situations..
Yes! And the no-win can be given a positive angle (justice, truth, principle), or a negative one (obfuscation, insufficient – if any – accountability).
Our intelligence services are pathetic when it comes to foreign languages and Arabic is not in rich supply. We are almost deaf and blind without the help of foreign services. Jordan and Egypt are our biggest and most valuable partners, but the Moroccans probably come in after them. The Saudis are notoriously unreliable, but they give us a lot of help, too.
If this is the key point against disclosure…
… then what’s not as clearly stated is the opposing argument. Using the quote as a basis, I’d say,
That loss of credibility would incur collateral damage in both foreign and domestic policy matters.
Obviously, I weigh in on the side of disclosure. As I consider historical antecedents of disclosures of our government’s wrong-doings and imperialism, it seems that always there have been short-term negative impact, but long-term benefits accrue.
And on the matter of immunity, I’m reminded of the domestic wiretapping controversies where only Qwest had the sagacity to be concerned about the legality of that program. Indeed, the inability of Congress to deal effectively with that matter seems to have created the precedent for the muddled confusion that persists today.
“You cannot expose a foreign intelligence service as being complicit in torture, for example, and think that they will ever cooperate with you again on sensitive intelligence matters.”
those intelligence services never should have been used to torture to begin with.
“That’s the legacy that the Bush administration left us. If we have a full airing of the black sites, the extraordinary renditions, and the ‘enhanced interrogations’, it will severely damage our vital relationships with several foreign intelligence services. And that can really and truly put our country at unnecessary risk.”
someone should have thought of that beforehand. I’m sorry if it’s embarrssing and causes trouble for us. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
I agree with you to a point. I especially agree with you when you say that they should have thought of that before. And we need tons and tons of sunlight on the intelligence activities of the Bush administration. What we can’t afford, and no country like ours can afford, is to shine too bright a light on other intelligence agencies.
“What we can’t afford, and no country like ours can afford, is to shine too bright a light on other intelligence agencies.”
shoulda woulda coulda: it’s too late for that. if there is a way to thread that needle, i would like to hear it. Is there a way to admit we sent people to be tortured without naming our partners in crime?
On a related note, the whole lack of foresight on the part of conservatives is glaring. some guys I know on facebook are freaked out that Obama may exercise some of the very same powers they supported for george bush: it is as if they never factored in the possibility that the other party might win an election and decide those powers applied to them too.
or another guy I know who claims to be in favor of indefinite detention for foreigners “because our country is different”. of course, when you send him to that special national geographic is airing, locked up abroad, it’s a different matter.
no foresight. none. they are exactly like the “live for today” crowd they pretend to despise.
The value add of spying is overrated – especially in the era of google maps.
But it is easy for the US to redact names of foreign cooperators if that is the real problem. So Brennan is just lying to protect American criminals.
it’s easy to redact names in a document. It’s harder to redact names in a lawsuit. Redacting isn’t really the issue. The Bush administration redacted 27-pages of material related to Saudi Arabia’s involvement with the 9/11 plot, but we all knew it was about Saudi Arabia. We already know that black sites were set up in Poland, Romania, Morocco, Thailand, and the Indian Ocean. You can’t hide that stuff by redacting it. The problem is actually a legal one. With cases moving through the courts, people want discovery materials. If we turn it over, it creates gargantuan problems of credibility for our liaison relationships with foreign intelligence services. This is a problem that has to be weighed very carefully. The proper response would be to cooperate in the administration of justice and not to avoid embarrassment for our government, but to protect foreign governments in the interests of future cooperation. That’s a high-wire balancing act that is ripe for abuse.
If foreign governments learn the cooperating with the US on illegal torture is dangerous, all the better.
that sounds good, but that isn’t the issue.
The issue is whether or not we can be trusted as a general matter, not in this specific case.
We don’t need foreign intelligence services to agree to continue the policies of Bush. We just need them to trust that what we do together won’t become a matter of congressional record tomorrow. This is an admittedly distasteful situation. In an ideal world, all the people that helped Bush violate human rights would be yanked out of their positions and thrown in prison. But we don’t live in an ideal world, and those people, for the most part, are still running the intelligence services of other countries. We need their cooperation for legitimate intelligence purposes. That’s what is at stake in this debate.
As a country, it is hoped that we will not be asking other countries to participate and facilitate further human rights abuses. That is not the debate here.
As a country, it is hoped that we will not be asking other countries to participate and facilitate further human rights abuses. That is not the debate here.
As a country, we ought to be reexamining our relations with foreign powers that helped prop up an illegal government after what amounted to a coup d’etat. If it’s chiefly our relations with Britain that are at stake, to hell with them. That we even have relations with Britain at this point is questionable. (I’m just going to pass over our relationship with Mossad as being unworthy of further comment.)
What we learned over the last eight years is that, among the large body of allies we need to repair our relations with, we have a couple of “allies” in particular that were more than willing to sell the American people down the river to secure their relationship with the American government, most likely for the sake of enhanced consideration in matters of trade.
I think your point, Booman, is valid as far as it goes. But I also think that there are bigger issues at stake than what would be — let’s be frank — temporary damage to our intelligence relationships, namely the security of our own democracy, the rule of law, and basic human decency. And considering the disaster that the Central Intelligence Agency has been for the US — to say nothing of the many democracies it has helped topple — since WW2, inconveniencing the spooks might actually be to our benefit and the world’s.
The point being that the national security interests of the United States would have been better served if Germany had arrested CIA agents for operating a rendition program instead of cooperating in torture. Nations need spooks, but it is always a temptation for the government to use the spooks to terrorize the nation – and that is exactly what Bush was up to. If our gutless and spineless “allies” had actually acted as allies, they would have strongly opposed the illegal acts of the Bush administration, just as the US government opposed the Vichy French.
Would exposing cooperation on torture really damage US interests?
You need a very clear and concrete explication to make that case. As far as I can see there are two categories: nations like Syria and nations like Denmark. In the first case, everyone knows already, nothing to be lost. In the second case, what happened is that rogue elements in our government illegally conspired with rogue elements in their governments to defy the laws of both. There is no positive in covering up this disgrace and it will serve as a warning in the future. I want German and UK intelligence officers to think very carefully about becoming accomplices in violations of human rights laws. Those people are smart enough to know the difference between sanctioned and unsanctioned cooperation and it would be good to draw a line.
We could use a specific example and hash it out that way.
At some point Dick Cheney and/or Donald Rumsfeld and George Tenet made a deal with Poland (to use one example) that they would house a prison for al-Qaeda suspects that had been captured and needed to be interrogated. The deal was made between intelligence services and administrations, but without disclosure to legislatures and the public.
Everyone agreed to deny the existence of the prison(s) if they were disclosed. Basic tradecraft applies.
Well someone leaked that information to Dana Priest of the Washington Post and eventually people had to admit that the program existed.
Okay, so bad plan, stupid policy, didn’t work, embarrassed everybody…
There is plenty of incentive not to repeat the mistake.
But do we take it further and start handing over the identities of Poles that cooperated in the scheme to lawyers that are asking for discovery? The obvious argument for doing so is that people have a right to receive justice and that our government doesn’t have an interest in perpetuating wrongs committed by the Bush administration. We can even argue that shedding the most light on the situation possible is the best disinfectant.
But there are other considerations. And those considerations involve the reaction of other intelligence agencies that work cooperatively with ours. It’s one thing for us to take responsibility for our own actions, but it is another for us to impose responsibility on the very people we asked to commit acts of dubious legality on our behalf.
So, you have competing principles. The right balance, in my opinion, is to err on the side of disclosure when it involves US citizens. But when it involves foreign services, it is much more difficult question.
But the memos in question do not identify specific Polish security agents.
And there has been nowhere near the level of exposure needed to provide disincentive at this point. In fact, suppression of this information and a further inquiry will convey the message that “obeying orders” is a get out of jail card.
Here’s the situation.
Our government broke our laws to do something evil.
The excuse for this lawbreaking was written by lawyers working for the “Justice” department on our tab. Holder has said that there is no legit security reason to keep those specific memos secret and wants to release them. Brennan, who appears implicated in the torture policy says there is some unspecified and, still, implausible security reason for keeping them secret.
To argue that release of these memos will give lawyers in US court cases the right to get specific names of foreign intelligence agents, stretches credulity.
that’s just sloppiness in the article. OLC memos aren’t the problem. It’s what that leads to in the courts. Just bad writing by Newsweek there.
So the OLC memos are released. And Lawyer goes to court and says, I want the name of Polish agents who tortured my client, and judge says, government has classified those documents, too bad.
end of story.
The OLC memos involve US citizens. Only by extrapolating out to greater declassification do we reach foreign governments.
Consider Mohamed et al. v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc..
That’s the real debate that’s going on in the administration. And the OLC memos are only important to the degree that they provide avenues to pursue more damaging information. The article is very sloppily written. How, for example, is Leon Panetta going to get engaged on an issue that is over and settled? He’s not. He’s going to become more active in protecting foreign relations.
This is a suit that the government should and could settle. Admit culpability, pay some damages, move on.
it’s a suit against Jeppeson. How do you propose that the government settle it?
Jeppson was acting as an agent of the government.
yeah, that’s why they’re being sued. What’s your point?
I don’t think the plaintiffs are interested in money, in any case.
Your claim is that the ACLU lawyers will want to, will have the legal grounds to, and will succeed in forcing the government to reveal details of e.g. Polish intelligence operations if the Bybee memo is released. I’m still lacking insight into how that happens. Assuming the ACLU lawyer asks, which seems unlikely, the judge will have grounds to refuse that have nothing to do with whether the bybee memo is published or not.
What I suggest is that the government can intervene in the case by offer to settle claims.
Can you imagine a Federal judge agreeing with an ACLU attorney that a Federal claims settlement offer which admits government culpability and argues that further exposure would damage national security is not grounds for dismissal?
the Bybee memo is already released. Why are you focused on something that is already done when the debate is about things that are still classified?
Over objections from the U.S. intelligence community, the White House is moving to declassify–and publicly release–three internal memos that will lay out, for the first time, details of the “enhanced” interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration for use against “high value” Qaeda detainees. The memos, written by Justice Department lawyers in May 2005, provide the legal rationale for waterboarding, head slapping and other rough tactics used by the CIA. One senior Obama official, who like others interviewed for this story requested anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity, said the memos were “ugly” and could embarrass the CIA. Other officials predicted they would fuel demands for a “truth commission” on torture.
These are the internal bybee memos, as I understand it. They do not cover intelligence relationships, but cover the rationale of the CIA torture is legal claim.
Two points:
Cleaning house inevitably means that people can see you carrying the garbage out to the curb. While this is unfortunate, it beats having it festering in bags in the kitchen.
The moral achilles heel of pragmatism is accommodation to power. I’m a strong supporter of Obama and a believer in the ugly give and take of pragmatic politics – unlike the Poutrage Salesmen on OpenLeft. But American pragmatists must always remember what happened to John Dewey, after a lifetime of principled pragmatic politics, he let himself be seduced by the Wilson administration and excused a vast butchery in the name of the greater good.
In this case, the crimes are so vast and the supposed repercussions so nebulous that we have to make a stand and insist that Eric Holder, no flaming radical himself, be supported against the torturing scumballs of the “intelligence community”.