Conyers (et al) to Archivist: How Successful Were They at Destroying Evidence?
I’m unsurprised that John Conyers, Howard Berman, Jerry Nadler, and Bill Delahunt have written to Hillary Clinton asking for copies of Philip Zelikow’s dissent to Steven Bradbury’s torture memo.
Despite the reported effort he describes to destroy all copies of the memorandum, Professor Zelikow nevertheless believes that "one or two [copies] are still at least in the State Department’s archives."
Of course one of the Committees was going to get this document.
I’m a lot more interested in their letter to the acting Archivist, asking for any copies in the George W Bush archives.
While we have requested this memorandum from the State Department archives, any copies available from the George W. Bush records are also necessary to determine as completely as possible the full circulation of this important document.
That’s because if the memo isn’t there, then not only is it suggestive of criminal intent, but it also violates the Presidential Records Act. In addition to the memo itself, they ask for:
(2) Copies of any "documentary materials" as defined in the President Records Act, that are related to or reflect any effort by an official of the Bush Administration to collect, destroy, or impede the preservation or retention of this memorandum, including records of any National Security Council meetings or National Security Council Deputies meetings at which the memorandum was discussed.
As you know, the National Security Council is a component of the Executive Office of the President, and its records are in almost all cases President Records which the Act requires to be preserved. Thus, depending on the precise circulation of Professor Zelikow’s dissenting memorandum, the effort he describes to "collect and destroy all copies" of the memorandum raises serious questions of a possible violation of, or conspiracy to violate, the Act, or another breach of federal law.
(3) Copies of any "documentary materials," as defined in the Presidential Records Act, that mention or refer to the Zelikow memorandum.
[snip]
… the requested documents may shed light on the adequacy and completeness of the former Administration’s consideration of these issues over time. [my emphasis]
Well, the normally careful David Addington (if that’s who told Zelikow to destroy the memo) got himself into a pickle with this one.
Thanks, EW! It will be interesting to see the results of this.
Typo alert: “Despie the reported effort… ” Missing “t”?
Bob in HI
Thanks. Threw it up quickly. My typo rate is going way up…
Why am I not surprised? Considering the rate at which you’ve been punching stuff out recently it’s amazing that it’s all so cogent. Typos be damned. I happen to be reading Ron Chernow’s biography of Hamilton these days and just yesterday read about the tear he was on when participating in the writing of the Federalist Papers. The parallel with your current work is striking. Keep it up, but do take time to walk your dog, if that’s the inspiration it takes.
It all started when that Little Ill dictator in North Korea fired off that last Typo Dong missile. Typos everywhere! Eeeek!
Typos going up? along wiith your knowledge quotient and accumulation of factsso no worries. A dismembering of DAddington would unravel much else that went on.
Thanks again for this site’s work.
that must be why you need the
flunkiesservantssecretariesattendantsassistants huh ???to take care of the typos
and to keep the beer cold
(post link to donation page here) GIVE
I’ve been lazy, would somebody post the link for me ???
Speaking of beer, I noticed in the liquor aisle today that Great Lakes Brewery has an “Eliot Ness” beer. As much as I wanted to taste some cold harsh righteousness, it was way overpriced.
How much of a pickle? (And good for Conyers and club)
Should we be calling Conyers and the rest of this crew and thank them for following the law?
Sternly worded letter?
No. I thikn this is the real thing. They got away with teh email business bc they could claim plausible deniability. There’s no (highly credible Republican) witness who can testify that they deleted the emails purposely.
In this case, they’ve got taht witness.
“There’s no (highly credible Republican) “
Say no more.
I’m so happy that these morons are so selective in their reading of history that they miss all the examples of “It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up”. I just hope that this time we get to prosecute both the crime and the cover-up.
Thanks EW for all the work that you do to expose the BushCo shenanigans! Zelikow is in neck-deep with the Bush thugs, so I was very puzzled by his cya effort, especially because the memo probably would show up, if there ever was one, and it would easily corroborate or refute his claims.
Interesting the parallel Goss effort to distance him and his people from the torture regime?!
Well, maybe a pickle…but some crimes are not worth “the cover up”. Clearly this one is. And I think history has shown that choosing the consequences for “the cover up” prevents being held fully accountable for god knows what crimes. It worked with Watergate, it worked with Iran Contra. It worked with Plame. It didn’t work so well for Clinton…because his crime wasn’t “worth” the cover up.
Clearly the more serious the crime, the more advantage the cover up.
Heh. The Zelikow “destroy all copies” order reeks of corporate lawyer stink.
At a Fortune 100 company, all employees who worked in offices were subjected to mandatory “document retention” training; the corporation didn’t want “stale” records floating around willy-nilly which could be misused in all manner of ways (you can read between the lines here). During the training sessions lawyer(s) responsible for records management taught us not only the difference between different levels of classification, like “proprietary”, “experimental”, “confidential”, so on, which specified who was permitted to access/read; we were also taught how long certain documents must be kept and how to keep destruction records.
But we were also taught that the originator of a document is the owner of the document, and that all copies of the document could be destroyed since the originator was responsible for the original document. They would be the ultimate keeper of the document under retention guidelines and the ultimate destroyer of the record.
Let’s see who was smart/dumb enough not to buy into this corporate-like record purge.
Perhaps Conyers’ letter is the beginning of, “No!” and character.
Yep. Not that there is real strict punishment for violation of the PRA (or any at all), but there is that pesky criminal intent thingy again. From every angle you view it, the Bushie “good faith” justification defense is evaporating at light speed.
Nope. No punishment for violating PRA, and obstruction of justice is still easier than a number of crimes (just ask Scoots), particularly torture which can carry quite the punishment.
I really do think they fucked up with the memo. Badly.
And, frankly, we know that Zelikow has chatted with Durham. I wonder if he told Durham about this destroyed evidence.
You would have thought Zelikow would keep one copy that he wrote for
himself…
Isn’t that strange?
Folks usually keep copies of what they write?
Zach Roth at TPM says that he emailed Zelikow who replied : “The memo I mentioned was highly classified at the time. So any extant copies, or drafts, would only be in an appropriate government safe. Any extant copies at State would be in their archival facilities for top secret papers from my files, or possibly Bellinger’s files, or Secretary Rice’s files.”
So he likely did keep a copy (or copies); and he dropped a hint as to where the other surviving memos might be located.
If this is a fiction of Zelikow’s he is setting himself up for a major FAIL…since he’ll be asked whom he sent it to…and we know that he’s mentioned two individuals. There must be more since he collected “copies”. If this is the same memo that was destroyed by Rumsfeld then there are some over at DoD. Rummy could not have ordered the destruction at State…that would have to have come from Rice, or perhaps Bush himself.
That’s what I was thinking as well. You write a note to fellow staff saying you’d love to make the meeting about the new cover sheets for the TPS reports but you can’t because you’ve got to stare at your navel at that time. I can see destroying that message. However, if your boss suddenly decides to break US law and international treaties by doing things to other people which even the Spanish Inquisition wouldn’t allow and you discover your moral compass and a smudge of courage or at least get a tinge of fear of prosecutions coming against you and you write a memo to CYA and maybe do the right thing one would think part of the CYA strategy would be to retain a copy of aforementioned memo. Especially when said memo is being written to one of the more vindictive figures in US political history.
A couple of thoughts crossed my mind. I wonder if there= is a memo floating about directing people to destroy the Zelikow memo disputing the legality of the torture memos? I can’t imagine that the distribution list would be that large (on the Zelikow memo) but who knows, when you enter into dark, obviously illegal activity like this people tend to stow stuff for that moment when they need leverage or a get out of jail free card. What “We the People” got going for us is the complete lack of honor and trust amongst those we elect to govern and how they’ll turn on each other like jackels when push comes to shove or when one has been served.
Also, unless Zelikow was feeling some Nixonian era nostalgia and decided to hand write his memo (perhaps with some lovely calligraphy to take the sting off of going against the Star Chamber) there’s a good chance that the FBI could recover an impression from his computer. Even if it is wiped clean sometimes deep in the bowels of the hard drive some data remains.
Its fun to watch this pressure cooker and guess who is going to crack first.
“And, frankly, we know that Zelikow has chatted with Durham”
I posted thinking so, but wasn’t aware of it having attained the level of science. Can you recap how it is we ‘know’?
EW, you’re the best! I come here all the time. I link to you all the time. I flag comments here all the time. And while I hesitate to clutter your thread with Kudos, I’m really blown away with your dedication, your expertise, and your memory!
The bush gangsters, responsible for so many crimes, were bound to leave fingerprints. And I just hope you’re watching your back. Because your nation needs you at 100%!
I just chuckle at the thought of how your posts and threads are likely leading to urinary frequency on the part of the bush gangsters! And sleepless nights. A new diagnosis will be needed: EWAD (emptywheel anxiety disorder) or perhaps PTEWTD (post-traumatic emptywheel thread disorder), in addition to the medical diagnosis of EWURD (emptywheel urinary urgency disorder)
I doubt they read Ms E; IMO it’s far more likely they’d show symptoms of exposure to secondary effects — and since emptywheel analysis is invariably acute and shows a hardy resistance to corrosion from such common agents as b.s. and spin, those effects, just like the pure undiluted stuff from direct exposure, have an exceptional shelf life.
But it’s certainly nothing worth worrying about, in contrast with say planet warming. What I find particularly concerning is the distinct absence of options in treating EWD.*
[emptywheel withdrawal symptoms]
Dang! You’re right!
Oh, yeah, I think it is a quite safe bet he did just that. Heck, Zelik has been a regular Perez Hilton with that little nugget in every venue he can find. You really think he wouldn’t Nuke Laloosh the pitch to Bull Durham??
EW is there some type of nexis, through evidence or testimony, between Goldsmith, Comey, Grenier, Mora, and Zelikow?
Did they all see “the package” on torture?
I have this sense that Zelikow was not the only one to leave a paper trail of dissent? If just one more of the above left a paper trail of dissent that was destroyed, it would kick up the “suggestive of criminal intent” to criminal intent, would it not?
Miller is one of the chief villains of the implementation end of this whole stinking mess. Above him were the authorizers. At his level and below were the implementers. I truly hope that Miller gets his day in court– as a defendant.
I would also like to hear his testimony on who gave him his marching orders, and what those orders were. IIRC he’s the guy who “Gitmo-ized” Abu Ghraib, too.
Bob in HI
What happens to people or Dept’s that destroy such critical evidence? What would happen to me if I destroyed evidence in an investigation?
Marcy – all of your posters will advance you all the typos you need. Just keep the DIGGING going!!
Paper and/or electronic trails will get these bastards yet. I think I will get more satisfaction out of seeing Addington brought to justice that any of the others – Cheney excepted.
Does this begin to finally warrant a Special Prosecutor? For something relatively benign like violations of the PRA, that then leads to the whole stinking can of worms…
Nice work as usual EW. I don’t post much anymore, but I read you every day. Thanks!
The threshhold for needing a special prosecutor was passed long ago. What is needed is the will to name a special prosecutor. I am really quite aghast at what it takes to get the DOJ– even under a Democrat– to enforce the law against people of high station. We badly need a fully authorized Patrick Fitzgerald, or equivalent, to be named.
Bob in HI
OT –
A Fordham law prof who teaches a class on privacy has used a project in the past where he has his students go dredge the web and put together a portfolio of private info about the prof they can find. After Scalia’s comments last year about not needing to protect privacy all that much, the assignment for the kids this year was to put together the portfolio on Scalia this time.
Scalia – notsohappy.
Those damn liberal professors…Do you think we will ever be able to take back that word and make it “valid” again?
Mary, I like your humor!
Another notsohappy Scalia moment for you:
http://www.acslaw.org/node/9525
I like that prof!
Well, before doing the happy dance, I stopped to think about what Scalia might do with that information to shut down the openness and freedom of the Internet.
Bob in HI
Next up, Jane Harman, she of the new-found concern about Americans being wiretapped.
hehehe – I thought of her when I read that piece.
Slightly OT – another court order due up to be ignored by the DOJ.
Judge Kessler has ordered the release of anohter GITMO detainee. Sullivan seems to have been hinting back in his hearing that something was going to be happening in Kessler’s court – maybe that was it. Apparently the info on the crazy-guy informer has had to be sent to all the GITMO judges by the DOJ – his input seeming to be pervasive in many of the cases.
I’m still stunned by DOJ’s assertion that it was no big deal not to tell the defense about their witness being nuts, bc they had already told the defense so many other bad things about his credibility that you couldn’t make him less believable by adding on info that he was nuts.
At least DOJ is getting training in Farce-See.
Ho ho. I’ll have to share that with some of my colleagues who work in Iran, or used to. Apparently, the DOJ is fluent in this language.
Bob in HI
Greenwald has an interesting one up about Harman’s eavesdropping campaign
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
I think it’s very important to read Zelikow’s words to try and understand who destroyed the memos and how they did it.
Zelikow, in his Foreign Policy piece:
Zelikow at the time was a “senior counsel” to the SecState, a position that was not Senate-confirmed, so it didn’t have any power. Not even much of a bully pulpit, as Zelikow admits. But it did give him access – a ticket into and a seat at the NSC table. His body was there.
Now how do you suppose an official member of the Deputies Committee (and someone who doesn’t occupy real estate in the West Wing) might distribute a document to his collegues? Paper copies? That sure would be a major security risk. My bet is e-mail… Since Zelikow was a Statie and not actually on the NSC, he wouldn’t have had his own NSC email account. And he was probably on a classified system mailing list, along with all his other colleagues on that specific Deputies Committee.
But the e-mail at the NSC was unique. Very unique. The Vice President could read it as Bart Gellman tells us:
So Zelikow, possibly sharing his memo with the members of his Deputies Committee, acutally ended up sharing his memo with the entire OVP. Now the OVP probably knew how to deep six all e-mail traffic. And the mailing list provided a road map of who got the memo, and who authored it.
What I really wonder is if Zelikow ever even brought the memo to a meeting… Or if it was deleted and destroyed before even being officially distributed.
why ???
he’s a lying snake who is trying to shed his skin of crimes by pointing to the single instance where he did the right thing
we can trace the malfeasance of 9/11 to the torture and violations of the US Constitution in a direct line
zeliklow was the putz in charge of covering up the 9/11 malfeasance
why should I believe a word he says ???
What is curious is that Zelikow was tight with Rice. He obviously knew that she had been the National Security Adviser during these events. Did he never talk to her about them? Also he had been on the NSC himself in the past. And, of course, there is his work with the 9/11 Commission.
Maybe Zelikow was a dissenter. Though his subsequent silence, sure looks to me more like he wrote a dissent for future CYA for himself and Rice.
Indeed.
My point was not to argue that Zelikow is a credible source. No, he and Rice have been tight for years, and there is some evidence that he did make efforts to spiffy up Condi’s performance before the 9/11 Commission Report went to print. One has to be suspcious of him.
And writing a “dissent memo” in 2005 long after the fact that torture had occurred is a pretty weak defense for Condi’s worldliness (she was operating in a vacuum without his sage advice??) but does seem to burnish his image in a minor, perverse way.
I think the memo does exist because I think Zelikow had several axes to grind and scores to settle. He was sore that he didn’t get an appointment on the George W. NSC (or in any senior position, for that matter) after having served on the transition team. His mentor, Condi, was led astray by the neocons. Etc. Etc.
I have no reason to believe he is lying about writing a memo. Why lie about something like that, especially when the hero factor is too small, especially if he could be proven wrong. No, I think he did write the memo, and now its coincedentally a particularly useful bomblet.
I think his words and position on the Deputies Committee can reveal how the memo was destroyed… And lead us closer to determine who ordered and facilitated the collective destruction.
1- We know that the OVP could read most (if not all) of the NSC internal emails and memos. Zelikow, as a member of the Deputies Committee, would have had access to secure e-mail and would likely shared his memo with the NSC list.
2- We suspect that OVP successfully made email disappear (witness the ‘zero counts’ on OVP emails within the Executive Office of the President on select war-relevant days) that were revealed in CREW’s ongoing legislation. OVP probably did the same with any of Zelikow’s email traffic. I bet Zelikow emailed his memo via the Secure system to the NSC Deputies. I bet OVP got a copy of it via their bcc: arrangement on the NSC system. And I bet OVP successfully erased those emails.
But what OVP couldn’t do as efficiently was get back paper documents. And that’s why they had to pay a personal visit to Zelikow (and possibly others who have not yet spoken up).
LOL! Our lips are sealed!
the timeline thingy makes me wonder if ew has a Tolkien fetish
in the appendix of Lord of the Rings, Tolkien’s entire fable history is laid out in time lines
I’ve read a lot of Tolkien’s developmental writing of the tale, and the commentary said the time lines were the hardest part to keep straight
ew’s time lines are the best weapon we’ve got
time seems to have a liberal bias too
(ps, Marcy has it easy, Tolkien had to figure the phases of the moon into his time lines)
I won’t argue your point on the unlikelihood of the particular torture memo being distributed or circulated in hard form — but for those same reasons, plus what we know already of PapaDick’s view of records [including: Libby’s talk with Fitz re ‘emails? not so much in this job’ and PapaDick’s man-sized
phrophylacticssafes], and the close oversight of Project Torture by OVP’s very own AddiDude, I should think distribution via email even less likely.Now, Zelikow didn’t come into the White House with Condi. I think he may have been on the transition team, but he seems to have come to occupy the position as Condi’s minder sometime after all the hoopla surrounding the publication of the 9/11 Commission report. The two of them were previously credited with co-authoring a book, and it’s not hard to find both mentioned on particular foreign policy think tank projects — and, to my mind at least, notable mong those projects [tho Condi’s not in evidence] was this one from 1998 on preparations for future acts of catastrophic terrorism.
Given all that, IMO it’s more likely any of the torture memos that came to Zelikow’s attention did so through Condi — perhaps partly as a remnant of her prior post as chief of the NSC [thus a “principal”]; perhaps partly owing to her juice obtained from expending som much effort in talking up the new product line [e.g. “mushroom cloud”] and thereafter in pitching in on the bucket line trying to douse the flames of Plame [e.g. the on-board ‘no one from the CIA told us different’ presser]; if not entirely by virtue of her being SoD [tho the treatment of Powell suggests the latter alone would not suffice].
Not quite off point: You know, in retrospect at least, it’s tempting to conclude that right from when Zelikow came on board on as counsel to the SoD, ‘fixing’ Condi’s position in torture history occurred to him as something of a priority.
Oopsie: forgot the linkie:
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/vis…..#Footnotes
ahhh footnotes:
from 1998, and where were Scooter and Judith in 1998?
such a reservoir oF personnel that Aspen Group has proved to be…
roots and all…
So many roots, they keeping tripping themselves up.
You talk about “SoD” in the last 2 grafs. Would I be correct to read “Sec’y of State” instead?
Double oopsie; yup.
Hey, I must be catching on!
Here ya go, Freep!
https://secure.firedoglake.com/page/contribute/MarcyWheeler
ew-related: from the balloon juice comments section in the cokie roberts post, Xenos writes of Emptywheel:
thought this very well said.
(and Jack Shafer’s description of Cokie – “Yet her declarations almost never signal the approach of anything notable: It’s her way of squid-inking the waters so she can say something completely superficial and escape before the listener can think it though.” has been cracking me up all day.)
THANKS for passing that on. That’s a better description of that tactic than “baffle ‘em with BS”; it puts some motion into it. “squid-ink the water and escape”
Thanks for the link. I love reading attacks on Cokie.
Would it surprise anybody to find out that the whole ‘Zelikow memo being shredded’ appeared in the NYT over two years ago. From Oct. 1, 2006:
Detainee Memo Created Divide in White House
…
Read the whole thing. Apparently, the NYT doesn’t have much institutional memory.
And if somebody has a copy of Angler handy, can you check to see if this was the incident that led to the discovery of the Cheney ‘email tap’ on the NSC?
Ah nuts. You’re telling me that it’d be Haynes doing the shredding, and Cambone, and not Libby and Addington?
Well, we do have keep in mind that the spooks and DOD were, how did you put it, sleeping together on torture?
I guess my, “This reads like rent-a-general quotes,” was more on target than I realized.
Nope EW! I think you may have actually been correct in your # 46.
In the NYT article that WO linked to, another member of the Zelikow memo writing group was:
(My Bold)
Matthew Waxman. Remember that name as you read this from an article published by the News & Observer yesterday:
(My Bold)
And Matthew Waxman also shows up in the WaPo today:
LOL. I strongly suspect that when Alan Brinkley was talking to me about hiring senior Bushies into the law school–and worrying about hiring the next Yoo–I bet it was Waxman.
Treason>>>>Treason >>>>Treason, then treason it is, then.
44 – amen on the institutional memory. That was my point when they came out attacking ABC over Kirakou, when last year they had also highlighted Kirakou’s info over that of their own source, who had told them that KSM was waterboarded 100 time in 2weeks or so.
Interesting catch. So Rumsfeld was po’ed. I wonder who Rumsfeld would call when he had a problem in another dep’t? Could he order destruction of copies (and the original?) even outside of DoD on his own hook? Would he have needed someone else to swing a hammer from higher up? (Yeah, I know. I’m seeing Cheney behind every bush these days. But he really did lurk in the bushes at the WH; was that a YouTube? Strange guy.) ( “… behind every Bush” I made an unintentional funny.)
I’m not entirely convinced the memo reported in the NYT and the Zelikow dissent are precisely the same doc (for example, Zelikow’s dissent may be part of the larger doc). But if Gordon England had the lead on it, then it’s DOD.
see my response to Mary at 93. Zelikow had no other outlet. England had a need.
I think we’re fishing in the right pond though
we might be looking at a whole series of memos here, with zeliklow’s being one of many that were ignored and erradicated
WO’s post at 44 triggered the old “memory” alarm
I don’t remember the exact details, bit I remember dumsfeld throwing a hissy fit over some kind of opposition discussion, and deep sixing some memos
WilliamOckham might not be “in the gold” here, but he certainly hit the target
Zelikow: “I first gained access to the OLC memos and learned details about CIA’s program for high-value detainees shortly after the set of opinions were issued in May 2005. I did so as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s policy representative to the NSC Deputies Committee on these and other intelligence/terrorism issues. In the State Department, Secretary Rice and her Legal Adviser, John Bellinger, were then the only other individuals briefed on these details. In compliance with the security agreements I have signed, I have never discussed or disclosed any substantive details about the program until the classified information has been released….At the time, in 2005, I circulated an opposing view of the legal reasoning. My bureaucratic position, as counselor to the secretary of state, didn’t entitle me to offer a legal opinion. But I felt obliged to put an alternative view in front of my colleagues at other agencies.”
Vs. “Zelikow, Waxman and England hovered together at a keyboard over the weekend of June 11 and 12 (2005). Their product, completed in England’s E Ring suite in the Pentagon, was a document of nine single-spaced pages, marked “SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED”.
So there is a little difference in the narrative…though the time frame is the same. Waxman is left out of those at State who were “briefed”…and Zelikow’s memo is portrayed as a solo effort. It was CLASSIFIED [when?] but widely distributed. Perhaps that got to Waxman and England. Waxman (a much more skilled Constitutional lawyer…ex-Souter intern) expressed interest to Zelikow, as did England…who wanted to revise it before taking it upstairs.
Thus the other memo was a team effort, composed with Waxman and England. Rumsfield flips his wig, as does Cheney when they learn of this. They order it destroyed, as well as the earlier copy. Likely Rice acquiesced.
But did the President intervene? Was this done at the NSC?
One minor correction, but Waxman was at DoD, not at State. Otherwise, you’re on a roll! *g*
surprised ???
no
that it’s you, and not Marcy who connected the dots here ???
mildly surprised, but not all that much
the peanut gallery here connects just as many dots as Marcy does
an we got a pretty large peanut gallery
that’s a compliment dudes …
It was apparently Powell loyalist Larry Wilkerson who revealed the e-mail tap. Not having Angler on hand at the moment, American Prospect’s “Vice Squad” (May 2006 issue) was the first to roll out that item…
Angler has a bit on this episode starting at page 347:
“In the first half of the year, her counselor Philip Zelikow began working secretly on a plan to reshape the legal landscape. He made common cause with two officials at the Pentagon. Gordon England, a corporate-minded manager who had replaced Paul Wolfowitz as Rumsfeld’s deputy, wanted to bring some order to a messy and controversial detention system, and he found a like mind in Mathew Waxman, the deputy assistant secretary for detainee affairs. Waxman had the unhappy task of visiting allies and defending the White House position that no existing legal standards applied in Guantanamo. Agitated e-mails suggest his state of mind. On March 24, 2005 after returning from Geneva and The Hague, Waxman wrote to Sandra Hodgkinson on the NSC staff. “They are starving for info and explanations. … Our own embassies are in the dark on key aspects of our policy!” he wrote. “We’re both slowly bleeding ourselves and shooting ourselves in the head with our current position.”
Zelikow, Waxman and England hovered together at a keyboard over the weekend of June 11 and 12. Their product, completed in England’s E Ring suite in the Pentagon, was a document of nine single-spaced pages, marked “SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED”. The draftsmanship had a skill that Cheney might have admired, proposing a reversal of course while claiming continuity with the system already in place. The way the memo put it was that the existing rules made perfect sense after September 11, when “the U.S. government quickly devised some initial procedures.” Enough time had passed to “learn more from the experience” and “refine our approach”. The president had an opportunity to offer a “vision of new institutions to sustain our effort for years to come.” Working with allies and Congress, the Bush administration cold build an “international system for handling captured combatants.”
The memo alluded to secret CIA programs, the “black sites” where the cruelest interrogations took place. At the time, their existence was a highly classified secret. “The policies of government agencies other than DOD cannot be walled off,” the memo said. “That wall will inevitably be broken anyway, probably soon. It is better that this administration do it, and do it early in the second term.” Zelikow, England, and Waxman made a concession here, proposing to permit “immediate post-capture interrogations on a special basis.” [Oopsie; guess he forgot to mention that part to Rachel.] In a “small number of selected cases,” suspects cold be “held temporarily, away from public scrutiny … in order to conduct humane but effective questioning and gather information while it is most current.” These secret detentions would “last for a defined period–measured in days or weeks, not months or years.”
After that, however, even captives like [KSM]… would “moveinto the regular detention system.” The Bush administration “should not assume they can just be secretly detained for the rest of their lives without trial.” Instead they should be treated “as if they were civilian detainees under the law of war.” Here Zelikow & Co. turned the corner to the international legal standard that Cheney & Co. had squashed: “We thus accept the applicability of the baseline Article 3 that appears in all four of the Geneva Conventions on the Law of War.” As a sign of their awareness that this might be a sensitive point, the authors turned on the Caps Lock key:
WE ARE NOT NECESSARILY SAYING THAT THESE DETAINEES ARE NECESSARILY ENTITLED TO THIS STATUS. TO BE CLEAR: WE ARE GIVING THEM A TEMPORARY STATUS THEY DO NOT DESERVE. BUT WE ARE NOT DOING THIS FOR THEM. WE ARE DOING IT FOR US.“
end of extract; except for the last paragraph in caps, all emphasis mine … plus of course the “oopsie” comment.
See, I don’t think this can be Zelikow’s dissent. That probably couldn’t be unclassified, if the opinion itself is classified, right?
Well, I’m not at all sure they’re one and same either. I kind of regret posting the lengthy extract from Angler, because doing so lends that impression; but what I was reacting to was WO’s earlier invitation [and I haven’t found anything on PapaDick bugging the NSC, which is why my nose was stuck in the book].
Reasons:
Not just in his interview on the Maddow show, but at his blog at Foreign Policy, Zelikow refers to having authored the memo in the first person — whereas Gellman’s reporting has him hunkered down over word processor along with England and Mathew Waxman, in more of a ‘we’ posture, consistent with the idea of them spreading the pain from the expected internal blowback.
Next: if Zelikow was among Gellman’s sources, he’d know first hand of the reporting of the memo being a joint enterprise; and in the less likely event he was not, then it’s beyond counterintuitive to think Zelikow would not himself have read Angler.
Next: the way Gellman reports this episode — to paraphrase him, the Bush administration’s 8 hour giddy experiment in the contemplation of humane treatment of prisoners; Hey kids! Why don’t we … nah, that’s so wimpy — suggests the work product of the three of them was designed to operate as some wierd bastardized hybrid of diplomacy and dickitude [I thought of putting his as “PapaDickitude”, but PapaDick didn’t so much invent dickitude as advance it] to, in deference to the term currently in vogue among the the yungins, ‘nudge’ their bloodthirsty and reactionary reptilian overlords away from the dungeon towards a shining future hospice on the hill.
Next: Zelikow’s own telling at least implies that his [singular] work received some circulation among participants in the agencies’ deputies coffeeklatch, if only at the fluffer level in some cases — whereas the other reporting, and certainly from Gellman, gives the impression the two top reptiles managed to cut off the circulation very early after conception, which would be inconsistent with the ‘philosophic’ bent of the memo Zelikow claims for himself and at the same time consistent with an expected natural outcome of such a memo being read, recruitment into a joint enterprise to save the republic, or at least the phony-baloney* administration [* See Brooks, Mel; Blazing Saddles; scene with territorial governor, chief of staff Hedly LaMar and numerous henchmen, toadies and hangers-on.].
So: I’m thinking maybe Zelikow is referring to something earlier in the genesis of the joint enterprise memo, maybe something to which the latter made a specific or implied reference such that the reptiles were able to smell out its existence, whereupon when the reptiles sent out their hordes to obliterate all evidence of the mere existence of the joint enterprise, Zelikow’s singular effort was scooped up as well owing to its dna.
so, maybe we’re readin too much in to this ???
just cuz all the rats jumped at the same time, and all the rats had matching life preservers, doesn’t mean the rats were conspiring together
they’re rats
that’s just how they roll …
Yes, that’s what I would think as well – that’s what I mean by the “could have” part of
in my 114
Although it is possible, I am not sure that the conclusion should be drawn that what Zelikow was talking about in his FP article and on Rachel is the same thing as this. Zelikow seemed to be be very deliberate, and consciously so, with his words. Measured is a term I would use, and I think Zelikow is kind of anal and precise with his words. Take a hard look at the FP article (and the same maintained on Maddow), it is couched in terms of “I” and “my views” and “my memo”. It is consistently singular and personal. Maybe I am loopy, but I think that Zelikow would not have phrased it that way if talking about something he wrote in conjunction with England or England and Waxman. Then there is the apparent difference in focus of the purported subject matter, which appears different between what he describes in FP and the ambit of what is described by WO and LD above.
Not that I’ve done a lot of keeping track of Zelikow, but it’s my general impression that he’s OK, especially for someone on the wrong side.
Yea; I missed your point here while I was drafting my own, but we agree about the singular/plural thing.
Yeah – I just don’t think they’re the same. I do think that if he was involved in both, it does show he was pushing on joint fronts, which would have been a good strategy.
“deliberate” “conscious” “measured”
Plus in choosing to go on Rachel Maddow’s show, he was picking one of only two widely-viewed forums suited to that demeanor [the other being Lehrer’s NewsHour], in that in neither could he reasonably expect to get hit with some completely moronic talking point. [I suppose he could have considered a sit down with Shep on Fox, but assuming that to offer some safe harbor, just the setting would give off the wrong smell to the crowds Zelikow wanted to play to.]
So, was Zelikow going onto Maddow’s show every bit as calculated as PapaDick choosing to tell his bedtime stories to Timmeh at MtP?
one of those Russert soft on dick interviews
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/…..epress.htm
Russert and Cheney
this interview is a winner
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/
Looking for the Russert interview with Cheney where Cheney starts repeating unsubstantiated claims about Iran and Russert does not ask him one challenging fucking question
You nailed it!
Any reasonably informed Beltway type would also know full well that Rachel’s place was a Progressive/Liberal media outlet, so it would be reasonable to assume that Zelikow knew exactly who his audience would be.
Zelikow had his own purpose for appearing on that Progressive/Liberal media outlet, and it wasn’t to toe the Repug/Faux News propaganda line.
FTR – Zelikow had a reasonably long appearance on the BBC that same day, virtually repeating word-for-word what he said on Madddow.
Did he choose the Beeb? Or were they the only other news org interested in what he had to say?
ooo — got a linky?
No, sorry. I saw it on the actual teeve – and can’t find it on the beeb website
Yes; having seen Maddow’s interview with Z., I am in exact agreement with bmaz’s excellent assessment here. That and $5 may get you a cuppa coffee @starbucks.
Bob in HI
I’m predisposed to believe this was a paper memo. The man is meticulous, and paper is the proper medium for meticulous and–more importantly–bureaucratically shrewd–people. Make no mistake that he would treat this as a potential timebomb for Cheney and Addington, and to do that, it’d have to be on paper form.
That said, note Conyers’ question about the Deputies meetings. Those are where the business of the govt get done, and it’s likely there are notes from a meeting at which Zelikow make quite clear what was in the memo. Hell, the meeting was almost certainly early enough so that Scooter would be in attendance (in fact, I guess Scooter is as good a candidate to be the guy who destroyed the memos as Addington, which would be familiary but not as just), and we know Scooter wrote meticulous notes.
And Wolfowitz.
No, not Wolfie. That’s why Englad was at the table.
FWIW, Gellman’s Angler has this at page 349:
“Rice and Zelikow were playing by Cheney Rules, trying to game the system and give their adversary the briefest opportunity to object. They were not very good at this sort of thing. England, Rumsfeld’s deputy, brought the paper to his boss on Monday, too. Rumsfeld reacted coldly. He had not authorized this. According to one official, Rumsfeld directed that all copies be withdrawn from circulation and shredded. Cheney’s office, alerted, made contact with Hadley. Just before 8:00 p.m., Hadley sent out a revised agenda. The principals would confine themselves to “a preliminary ‘big picture’ discussion,” and “no paper would be tabled or advanced,” according to notes made that evening by a participant.”
You’d think if Zelikow and Waxman were so willing to spill to the Post, they’d be willing to submit to emptywheel.
Awright, that does it. I have shell out for that book, “Angler”. The NYRB just got some change out of me for their Cheney article, so may as well go whole hog.
I’m always reminded of the timetable on these things–and that’s why ew’s timeline… should we call it a fetish? let’s just call it a “thing”… is so awesome.
For myself I don’t get into the exact dates, but try to stick to the bigger categories: before the invasion; before the 04 election; post-04 election revelations (yes, you might have mentioned that…); and post-06 election. These are of course obvious enough. But I just like to remember “the good old days” of the permanent Repub majority, holding the congress and running all the committees, when there was barely even token oversight. Kind of amazing that that long nightmare ended and is finally starting to come around full circle.
There was an extreme level of arrogance, lawlessness, and criminality, and they thought that it would never end and they would never be caught. That’s an important factor in anything from 04 and 05. By 06 the war was in really bad shape. They went ahead and fired the US Attorneys after they lost the 06 elections almost on pure momentum–it was business as usual. Emails disappeared by the hundreds, covering the most convenient dates, and we all know what it was like sitting around for Friday night news dumps.
They didn’t expect to lose in 06, at least not until the last minute. They knew it was going to be over in 08, and they had no successor, but they might have thought that their machine and media manipulation would keep going, that it might pull things out, that it wouldn’t collapse. But whatever is happening now certainly wasn’t part of their plan. They were crafty, and secretive in every way, and they didn’t leave a whole lot of tracks, but they were still doing all kinds of horrible stuff. They also didn’t count on their own failures (Afghanistan, Iraq, Katrina, Wall St, economy) to be so massive that they would create such a glaring invitation for scrutiny. It is epic corruption that was unconscious of the possibility of failure on the same scale.
And it’s still hard to nail them. But the effort does seem to be picking up momentum and evidence and clarity. With Obama settling in and addressing the biggest issues and setting policy, and the DOJ doing the same, soon enough it will be time to be more “reflective.” Getting there, with a lot of help from ew.
Senate Judiciary to Hear Zelikow Testimoney on “Torture Memo” Memo
By: Spencer Ackerman Monday May 4, 2009 1:02 pm
44/47 – are you sure it’s the same memo? It sounded as if Zelikow had written one as a direct response to the OLC CIA memo by Bradbury, which wouldn’t likely have had England on it. With the dual authorizations and the pressure in the military, I can see where he might have gone with dual memos as well, on direct from State vis a vis the CIA authorizations; one re: military authorizations that he gets England to join in with him on.
That memo might have been a precursor to, or follow up after, the meeting in 2005 described by Mora in Mayer’s piece, “the memo”
And even though Pentagon was Rumsfeld’s bailiwick, Addington makes his appearance in that story as well:
Anyway – I’m just trying to figure out if it was Pentagon torture, CIA torture, or both that Zelikow issued memos on.
That’s why I asked my “nexis” question at 18 and linked to the Mayer article. I am not sure if there is a second memo by Zelikow or if there is a second memo by someone else opposing the policy that Zelikow writes an agreement opinion to?
I mentioned the “package” section only as speculation as to where the torture policy and praxis came together, which perhaps could explain a “nexis” for the list of folks I named at some point all viewing individually and perhaps issuing opinions about the package policy. I would if their opinions were then kept “in the package.”
Should read:
I mentioned the “package” section only as speculation as to where the torture policy and praxis came together, which perhaps could explain a “nexis” for the list of folks I named at some point all viewing individually and perhaps issuing opinions about the package policy. I wonder if their opinions were then kept “in the package.”
Yeah – I think all the stuff with England and Waxman (which was also tied ot that meeting that Mora attended) was related to military policy. Since they were not distributing OLC memos on the CIA program to DoD, I think what Zelikow says in this piece (thoughts from a dissenter) sounds like he is talking about the CIA memos with respect to his memo that was ordered destroyed and it may not have been able to have England as a co-writer if he wasn’t briefed in on the CIA memos, so I think Zelikow possibly purused dual tracks.
emph added
And it sounds like the England joint effort may have been more policy focused, while the one responsibe to the CIA memos may have been more directly critical of the legal reasoning in those memos:
But ??? I guess it will give Whitehouse something to ask him about.
Do we know for sure who and where Comey was read into his understanding of the “combined”?
His disgust with the degree of torture is clear in public comments, but the trail of his developing a full understanding of the “in combination” is still unclear to me.
My research is leading me to “bits and pieces” but not a solid “first time informed” source.
His original resignation letter, which he never submitted, with the “apocalypse” language makes me think he learned about it in the Oval office.
His language is quite strong and I think it is not just in reference to warrantless wiretapping but also torture. Just in terms of the strength of his language and the context he referenced, as well as knowing his depth of knowledge of Niebuhr.
Mary,
Here’s why I think these two stories are about the same thing. As Zelikow says, as a policy advisor, he had no avenue for responding to the OLC memos’ legal thinking. Rice was so ineffectual that he had no means of publishing policy analysis from State about a CIA program. However, there was a policy process dealing with detention and torture going on in the DOD. Even though the 2005 OLC memos were requested by the CIA, they, of course, were binding on all the Executive Branch. At the very time that Zelikow says he was looking for an outlet to express his opposition, England shows up looking for a lawyer to help him formulate a political strategy that would push the concerns of the military lawyers past the Haynes forces. Perfect match.
You might be right, but I don’t tend to think they were. I tend to think there were events taking place contemporaneously and Zelikow interposed in both sets.
I think that you had Mora et al very unhappy and pushing at DOD and there they had already been cut off by Haynes and Yoo on the “legal arguments” under the rubric that the OLC opinions were binding for the legal conclusions but they still wanted the policy fight and England coming in as Dep SecODef in May 2005 opened that door.
Zelikow talks about directly confronting the legal conclusions of the OLC memo and circulating competing legal conclusions. He also emphasizes that he had not spoken outside of a very closely conscribed circle who were read in to those memos (he mentions Rice and Bellinger – conceivably England would have been too, but not Waxman and the Angler piece makes it sound like the reference to the CIA blacksites isn’t in re: arguing legal reasoning, but more in re: arguing the policy issues of CIA leak through and lack of ability to wall off CIA procedures – more policy issues).
I don’t think he could have or would have been circulating a memo that directly took on the legal reasoning of the CIA opinions in a memo with England and to Rumsfeld. But since I don’t really know what he did – ? The “dissenter” piece may well overstate what he purported to try to do.
But this isn’t what he said in the dissenter piece, “As Zelikow says, as a policy advisor, he had no avenue for responding to the OLC memos’ legal thinking.”
He says that he didn’t really have standing to issue a legal “opinion” but that he did take on the legal analysis anyways bc he wanted there to be an alternative review in the record:
emph added
There he is talking about tackling the legal reasonging and offering an opposing view. In the England memo (which would have had a very different set of policy issues too from CIA) it sounds much more like they were tackling policy issues
Per 68 above, quoting Angler, re: the England memo
And it was unclassified. I don’t know of a way he could take on, specifically, the OLC memos in an unclassified memo when they were classified. He could make the oblique references to the sites in a policy memo.
I’m not wedded one way or the other and don’t really know enough, I just don’t think what he describes in his dissenter piece for FP sounds like the same kind of memo.
Also – he wouldn’t have to be relying on copies only in his references to the England memo – he had two co-drafters who could speak to the memo even if there weren’t copies.
I suspect that Zelikow, who wasn’t on Condi’s staff wwhen she was running the NSC…would not have been privy to what she did during that period. She may have implied to him, and others at State, that she was not heavily involved in the decision-making process, or had even been cut out of it. So Zelikow, assuming that there were no meetings or documents implicating Condi, wrote up his attack on the “Yoo-Bybee legal analysis” as a means of CYA for her. But it really wouldn’t have helped…but he didn’t know that.
Some of those here said that Zelikow lacked the power to offer a “legal opinion”. To me that’s odd, since he was the State Departments Legal Counsel. But if true, he would likely have been out searching for someone of that status within the administration who COULD offer that imprimatur. Perhaps that was how Waxman or England ended up on his mail list?
Citizen cinnamonape:
I don’t think it’s helpful at this stage with this rat Zelikow to try and discover motives…suffice that the bastard was most interested in coverin’ his OWN sorry ass and if he tossed some blanket to Condi that was “ok” and if not…well it’s every rat for himself!
I know Norske…but sometimes it helps me to try and think of why they might do something (if a bit out loud) in order to work out more information. Call it the “hypothetico-deductive method”. If Zelikow had motive “X” then he might do “Y”…but if not, he might do “Z”.
It also works it out that you know when to ask for more information or ask questions in ways that allows the respondants to have to give you all appropriate materials/answers. You cover all bases and don’t allow them to end the questioning simply ’cause you haven’t played out the chess match.
Zelikow: “I first gained access to the OLC memos and learned details about CIA’s program for high-value detainees shortly after the set of opinions were issued in May 2005. I did so as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s policy representative to the NSC Deputies Committee on these and other intelligence/terrorism issues. In the State Department, Secretary Rice and her Legal Adviser, John Bellinger, were then the only other individuals briefed on these details.”
I think Zelikow is saying pretty clearly that any information he had was related to the OLC Memos of 2005. He may not have had any information about earlier memos except from Rice, or Bellinger. Rice of course, knew it all…so she could have easily misled Zelikow and Bellinger about her role.
Note that I’m not trying to sanitize Zelikow in any way, but if he didn’t know about Rice’s role in signing off on the 2002 memo, then he might have been recently flummoxed at what she told him in 2005. Suddenly his darlin’ l’il Condi turns out to be the Queen in Sleeping Beauty.
Was he really “legal counsel” to the SoS? His wiki shows him as a “counselor”, i.e. not the same thing at all. Indeed, a big part of the possible value of such a memo as he describes on his blog at Foreign Policy is as a ’standard’, coming as it does [if it exists in the form implied] from someone within the administration who has some expertise in the area sufficient to command respect such that to order it scooped up would go some distance to show consciousness of law-breaking on the part of those who issued the order. I’ve had occasion to give some expert testimony in competency hearings, a context in which it’s vital to fix a standard; for example, the existence and treatment of such an opinion, as well as its timing and source, would be of interest to those charged with considering competency in an OPR investigation; and they wouldn’t hurt in front of a jury, either, whether formally constituted or of the popular opinion type.
You’re right…Counselor was apparently a policy position. The SoS has an Office of Legal Adviser for which legal opinions and advice is sought. That was Bellinger. That’s why Zelikow sent it to Bellinger, to win him over. The question is, was Bellinger aware of what Condi did in 2002.
Well yeah, he had to have been aware: at that time, he was legal counsel to the NSC, the office which she headed.
Twould seem likely:
So are there Bellinger legal opinions on this crap…as well as the Yoo and Bybee memos?
Hmmm…perhaps yes and perhaps no. *g*
From Page 4 of John Yoo’s submitted written testimony before the HJC:
So, here’s the “curious” bits:
1. John Bellinger, III was that NSC legal advisor requesting the OLC opinion.
2. John Yoo produced 2 August 1, 2002 OLC Torture opinions:
– Bybee Memo One – This August 1, 2002 OLC Torture opinion was directed back to one Alberto Gonzales, White House Counsel.
– Bybee Memo Two – August 1, 2002 OLC Torture opinion was directed back to acting CIA General Counsel John Rizzo.
3. Even though John Bellinger had requested an OLC opinion, it appears he never got a response directed back to him. I’m assuming that Bybee Memo One addressed to Fredo is that OLC Torture opinion, but we don’t know that for sure.
In any event, does it not seem likely that John Bellinger would memorialize whatever response came back in some way for the NSC in his role as Legal Adviser to the National Security Council?
If not, why not? After all, he made the request.
This goes back to some of the reports, too, on Rice making demands of Ashcroft that he personally sign off, not just go with the OLC opinion and that supposedly he did. Also there were reports that she wanted Crim Div and not just OLC to look at things – that is a big black hole of info.
And &sid=ST2009042204035″>this story by WaPo referred to a few other things, including a letter from Ashcroft
emph added
So there was also a letter from Ashcroft in July 2004 and something from OLC in August 2004, preceding the May, 2005 memos.
I think Christy and a few others have pointed out the ways OLC memos are requested – and you point to Yoo’s testimony about Bellinger making the request. So we are also missing the requests, which leaves out a lot of the story.
But IMO, what you may have is something like the OLC memo to Rizzo which Ashcroft also “signed out” to NSC under the pressure from Rice (which would explain why he’s snitty about her now too – she may have made him sign off on the dotted line himself, as opposed to being able to just point back to Yoo).
Be nice if we end up with more info later.
In fact the memos show Bellingers involvement. And I knew that, but things are flying so fast from Marcy, that I forgot it!
http://www.harpers.org/archive…..c-90004849
http://www.harpers.org/archive…..c-90004900
Note however that Bellingers “push back” are based not on legal, but pragmatic ‘does it work’ grounds from British and Israeli efforts. It was Zelikow arguing the legal direction.
Bellinger had already cleared the 2002 Legal Opinions (what a f***ing bunch of crap lawyers) so would have a hard time saying “well yeah, sure I didn’t argue against them THEN…but it’s clearly torture NOW”. So he had to argue that “the Brits got nothing but false confessions and crap intelligence from waterboarding the Irish…and they forced confessions out of innocent people who were wrongfully implicated by others who were tortured”.
Condi headed the NSC as NSA, Bellinger was NSC counsel. He sat in the meetings, he participated in the policy drafting, he knew what she did. He got the direct brief from the CIA analyst in 2002 on the fact that many of those in GITMO (for whom he had participated in the authorizations of “harsh” techniques and, for that matter, in the shipment to GITMO in violation of the GCs if they were protected persons and not enemy combatants) were completely innocent of being combatants of any kind.
So yeah, he knew.
As the GWOT was delegated directly to the CIA and DoD, I would not find it surprising that the lace underwear-types over at State were cut out of the loop. So no “standing” even for DoS Legal Counsel Zelikow.
From all we’ve seen, both the Colin Powell and Condi Rice DoS tenures were notable for having to suck hind tit.
Sorry – suck hind tit – I am not familiar with this turn of phrase. Is it akin to sloppy seconds? Or just the runts of the litter pushed to the back, so to speak? Or does hind tit mean something else entirely? Clearly I need a DoS, or maybe GWOT, glossary.
From the Urban Dictionary for your future reference *g*
Sucking hind tit
I tend to think the phrase has a more derogatory meaning, but perhaps that’s just me. *g*
to illustrate MadDog’s point; we once had a german shepard who produced 10 puppies in one litter. since the shepard had 10 tits, it would seem that the puppies and the tits were equal
but a simple test showed that only the front six nipples gave abundant mile
the fourth set of nipples produced a little milk, and the last set of nipples produced no milk.
the solution, bottle feeding the puppies (fun for kids, not so thrilling for adults)
all ten puppies survived, and made it to a good home, and we had some FUN for about 10 weeks in my childhood, and I learned why “sucking hind tit” wasn’t a good thing
(Mom an Dad didn’t think waking up at 3:00 am to feed puppies was so “fun”, but I had a good time …)
I thought the term was “teat.” What’s all this tit stuff?
Animals have teats; women have tits?
Bob in HI
Well, since we’re well into the evening twilight zone (but it’s still light here in Hawaii…)
From my observation with cats, a cat that sucked hind teat grew up with a permanent inferiority complex, no matter how big or strong he became. And cats that sucked head[?] teat were boss cats. They carry themselves with an air of superiority. But I would guess Mary has a better sample to judge such things than I have had.
BTW, judging from my small sample, cats that suckle high like to sleep with their heads close to yours, and cats that sucked hind teat sleep down by my feet. I don’t think I could tolerate a cat that sleeps nose to my nose.
Now, let’s get back to today’s most excellent programming… puh-leaze!
Bob in HI
hummmm
tit position determines personality ???
fascinating
I guess we raised some really screwed up puppies, seeing as how we were denying them the right to sort out their personalities by their position at the dinner table
but you really shouldn’t encourage me like that, if you really feel this way
it just encourages me
Now, As You Wish
I was multitasking here, but I’ll get all topical an shit …
I think Zelikow was pretty savvy to the ways of the NSC and NSA and Condi’s role – it might have been intended some to make the Rice/Bellinger crew look better, but more so I really do think that it was done bc he thought we should get out of the govt torture business. But who knows – it’s not like he’s some great guy leaving a trail of warm fuzzies wherever he goes.
Re: “power” to issue a legal opinion – it’s not about power, it’s about having a role. For example, I could issue a legal memorandum today, but no one in DOJ would be required to abide by my holdings. You had a CIA program and a military program, neither of those were areas where State legal counsel had a “client” or an abiilty to give a meaningful intervention. But he went ahead and put it out there anyway.
By this time most of the CIA tortured detainees had been transferred to Gitmo…so that’s Pentagon turf. If the CIA wanted to continue “harsh interrogation” at Gitmo (or other US military bases) it would have to be over the Pentagon’s protests if this policy went through. It might have also been difficult to transfer them from a military base to a CIA secret prison.
BTW A little bit on Gordon England who according to the above articles, composed with Zelikow and Waxman the proposal brought before the Joint Chiefs.
Well, if CIA folks were passing themselves off as FBI, why not as military?
??
I’m not sure what you are getting at in response to my post. Some detainees were held at GITMO originally but as a part of the CIA program they moved them after Rasul, putting GITMO within US jurisdiction.
My points have been directed at why I think there were two memos –
one by Zelikow offering up legal reasoning in response to the poor legal reasoning in the May CIA memos (and dealing with arguments under the 5th, 8th, torture act, etc.) and
one by Zelikow and England (with assists from Waxman) offering up policy arguments for why the military interrogation program should be dialed back and the military should go back to following the Geneva Conventions (even though they try to make it more palatable by saying – of course, this would just be bc we are great guys, not bc we HAVE to give them this treatment) and mentioning that without those kind of bright lines, too, nebulously referenced CIA programs will bleed through.
So I’m not sure why you are saying that you think the fact that CIA detainees were at times held on military bases means it is more likely there is one memo, not two. I think that fact goes to the bleed through issue that the England memo is reported to address. But keep in mind that the memos on the CIA program would ordinarily NOT be anything that Waxman would have been able to access with their classification and his status.
By this time most of the CIA tortured detainees had been transferred to Gitmo…so that’s Pentagon turf.
If ‘this time’ (production of Zelikow memo in response to Bradbury OLC memo) is mid-2005, not so. The big transfer of the ‘worst of the worst’ from the black sites to Guantanamo happened in September 2006.
“When the paper first circulated in the upper reaches of the administration, two of those officials said, it so angered Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that his aides gathered up copies of the document and had at least some of them shredded.”
Could be fully accurate to call Dick Cheney one of Rumsfeld’s “aides.” Wasn’t it Libby who wanted to be attributed as a “former Hill staffer?”
EW, you previously mentioned trying to contact Philip Zelikow via email but with no luck in getting a response back.
If I may offer a suggestion, perhaps you could try contacting Matthew Waxman. As he seems willing to talk with the TradMed (see my # 70), there is at least a possibility that he’d be willing to converse with you.
You know, that EW blogger person who scooped the NYT!
Matthew Waxman’s email at Columbia is public info (via Google):
[email protected]
From Matthew Waxman’s Columbia bio, some interesting info perhaps on his character:
(My Bold)
OT-Form AGAG has a tough time with the word torture: The Raw Story
Was it treason. But of course.
O/T, but I hadn’t seen this before…
This is the MOU between the Bush Office of Administration and the National Archives regarding restoration/preservation of missing emails…
http://www.archives.gov/presid…..ration.pdf
Anything look off-kilter here?
Citizen 92, I see no mention whatsoever of any archives for LotusNotes, the prior email system. Theoretically, they went through the motions of trying to convert some of those archives but ran into great difficulties doing so. Those archives also pre-date a lot of the run-up to the war and other critical activities…
“possible violation of, or conspiracy to violate, the Act, or another breach of federal law”
add it to the list. And the punishment is…a Sternly Worded Letter…
Judge orders release of Guantanamo prisoner
U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler says the United States should take all necessary diplomatic steps to release Alla Ali Bin Ali Ahmed.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…..isoner.php
http://tinyurl.com/ccfgf9
As usual, it isn’t the crimes::
It’s the cover-up that will get them fried.
No it’s the inhumane Torture by TRAITORS nothing less.
OT –
Hopefully before Soufan testifies, the Senators will spend some time with, among other things, this FBI review of torture complaints etc. involving FBI agents with the info that SOufan is Thomas in the recitiations. (I think Whitehouse should also push the FBI to reconsider some of their redactions inlight of what has come out to date)
Also – someone awhile back was asking for a link to info on FBI impersonations and the report has a section on that too.
OT: Stanford alums are turning up the heat on Condi:
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news…..-Rice.html
Have they heard “we don’t torture” Condi to alum did you do your “homework”?
Stanford forty years ago…
they’ve not been wasted:
Here’s a link which provides an email address in case anyone wants to weigh in to Stanford with a complaint to their faculty affairs person:
http://facultyhandbook.stanford.edu/fa.html (see bottom of page for email info)
Or, if you prefer to complain to student affairs folks: All sorts of ways to reach administrators dealing with Student Affairs at Stanford can be found at this link:
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/vpsa/ (many different emails to choose from!)
Sen. Dodd “Bush officials involved in torture ‘ought to be pursued’. He cites the 183 also.
http://rawstory.com/08/blog/20…..l=home.php
http://tinyurl.com/dh2hbj
o.k. I may get blasted but I really do not get why Zellikow’s dissent memo is so damn important.
During that interview with Rachel Maddow he made it sound like aw shucks Rachel they were just in a
“murky area of the law”
“I’m just one point of view”
“of course just offering my opinion”
“perfectly entitled to hear an alternative opinion”
“they weren’t commiting an obstruction of justice by trying to destroy copies of the memos”
Zellikow “I don’t know why they wanted to do it”
“all it shows is that they were presented with an argument that says your interpretation of the law appears to this one fellow to be unsound”
coming in late so it may have already been asked or mentioned, but has anyone said they’ve seen this memo besides zelikow? iow, is it possible this is a fiction of zelikow’s as part of his own cya?
I wonder about that, and it brings me to another question:
Does zeliklow understand that any repuglitarded former bush official is gonna have trouble selling water in a fucking desert right now
if zeliklow is smart enough to understand that, then I assume he’s telling the truth
most repuglitards don’t understand that most Americans view repuglitards as the turd in the punch bowl right now, and most Americans are also sick of the corporate media telling us “Try The Punch”
this leads most of these stupid fuckers to keep peddling the same old bullshit, and keep thinking America is on their side (michele bachman is exhibit A here)
I ain’t sure that zeliklow is that stupid
he did a good job of covering george’s ass with the 9/11 commission
anybody who could make a purse out of that sow’s ear ain’t a stupid man
He wrote the 9/11 report beautifully (think I got that right). Created a soft spot in my heart for him.
“beautifully” Didn’t he win an award for best fictional revisionist history or something?
Did you read it? Certainly surpassed all other prose composition in its category.
I did; in the manner of that map of the U.S. Steven Wright took the summer off to fold. All snark aside, IMO there are parts that have merit, but as to whether those suffice to redeem the effort, I’m inclined to something like the take of George Bernard Shaw on Wagner’s Ring cycle: some beautiful moments interspersed with some horrendous half-hours.
My frame of reference was other commission reports, and strictly the prose, not the underlying truth (which who knows wtf any of them mean). In that frame, 9/11 report blows the others away.
Certainly in its current use as a paperweight.
This is a good thread!
Cheney’s shadow NSC looks like a Covert over-watch of the statutory NSC, secretly reading e-mails and using Team Player Policy Shapers – like Rumsfeld – to control the Agenda.
And, so, Zelikow – who is playing Condi’s ‘un-intimidated’ Conscience – as her Deputy on Policy slides a written Memo – urging a return to the Geneva Conventions – complete with a distribution list, that includes tagging as a Document subject to the PRA for the Archivists, on the table at a meeting.
This Memo is Zelikow’s attempt at CYA for Condi. He’s going to claim, imvho, that – in the aftermath of 911 – she was ‘truamatized’ and ‘intimidated’ by Bush and Cheney, and that she was literally too afraid to express how she really felt – hence Zelikow’s Policy Memo-for-the-Record on Compliance with CA3GC.
For his part, this is the protective Zelikow’s way of saying to US now, “Don’t be too quick to judge Condi, until you see Bush, the Monster, up close – like she did. This would explain the Kabuki-duet that’s being orchestrated between her and Zelikow now – she gets filmed ‘acting’ like she’s traumatized on 911 all-over-again when questioned about her role in Bush’s Torture – and he brings out the ‘dissent’ Memo that she probably agreed with him on in private, but just couldn’t compose herself enough to say so to Bush or Cheney.
So, anyway, the Memo is out ‘on the table.’ Rumsfeld blows-up – and goes to Cheney’s over-watch bunker, demanding that that fucking Memo and all of its copies had better disappear like they never existed. Why? Because Rumsfeld’s Stakeholders in the Uniformed Military categorically
expecteddemanded compliance with the GCs. And now here’s a Memo that says, “We need to get back to Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions.”My guess is that Cheney and Rumsfeld made booming demands – national security and all, you know – for the return of the Memos, and got almost all of them back.
Except when Cheney ran into the Archivists, either the Archivists said, “So?!” and kept their copies of the Memo; or Cheney Took Them Anyway and said, “So, what?!”
And so, if Bush’s Archivist doesn’t have a copy of the Memo, then that means that there was some PRA hanky-panky there, too.
Either way, this is a Loser for Bush and Cheney: Either the Memo damns them with its Contents, or the Missing Memo damns them with their destruction of an Appeal to Conscience dissent subject to the PRA.
I don’t think Condi was traumatized as much as compromised. She had royally “screwed the pooch” by letting GWB ignore the August 8 memo regarding an imminent attack on U.S. soil. Since W had cover, i.e. the ability to blame everything on his NSC adviser (Condi), she may have been given the choice to either play ball and possibly get to be SoS (if everyone bought the story and Powell outlived his usefulness after selling the WHIG invasion plan to the U.N.) or take the fall for a catastrophic lapse in government security preparations.
yes. She sure comes up with a bucket full of excuses for not being on the ball at that point. She loves to blame Richard Clarke
EW, has this been added to your timeline? Evidence that Condi herself gave the first green light to torture:
Sorry if I’m reporting old news. But it was news to me.
I think this is the thing that Condi was referring to in the Stanford interview, claiming that she didn’t “approve” it, she was just the messenger, “conveying” something that had already been approved by the WH. Yeah, someone in her position just being the messenger. If she signed off on it, she’s not just a messenger.
Bob in HI
Condi told a number of lies to the student. And lying is specifically not covered by Academic Freedom! I think this lady’s goose is cooked at Stanford. The wheels of academe grind slowly, but I bet before they grind too far, Condi will find she needs to resign, in order to work on her book (away from protests and such).
I’m still wondering if somewhere there isn’t a set of those August memos, or at least the newly released one, countersigned by Ashcroft. The articles have made it sound like Rice wanted him, not just olc, on the line with approvals and that he gave them. And I still think exploration of Chertoff and crim div is underdeveloped. Some of the reporting made it sound like she wanted him to sign off too. The timelines have him involved in the meeting with Levin. There’s a reference somewhere to Chertoff not thinking they could go back and “clean team” for info once it had been given under torture too – and where would that have come from?
Chertoff went on the Sept torture trip and managed to keep that very quiet until Levin’s hearing and even there it was buried. Chertoff got his Circ Court appointment not that much after Bybee got his … I have to think there should have been more fingerprints at Crim Div than are coming out – for better or for worse.
I just listened to Zellikow again
http://emptywheel.firedoglake&…..yed-memos/
Rachel ask “How did know that they tried to destroy the memos”
Zellikow “Well I found out because I was told “we’re trying to collect those and destroy them, you have a copy don’t you”
This is the only time that Zellikow fumbles during that interview after he states that they ask him “you have a copy don’t you But I uh the uh um I know that copies were obtained in my building”
so they asked Zellikow if he has a “copy” he does not say he handed it over. He did say that “copies were obtained in my building”
##### Has or can Conyers ask Zellikow if he has a copy of that memo or copies?
Zellikow “But I uh the uh um” why does he fumble here?
So what if the Bush administration destoyed documents. Who’s going to hold them accountable? Congress? That’s laughable.
O/T – but relates to the Friday tv interview with Bruce Fein. I have taken this directly from an updated TPM blog that was contacted by the Heritage Foundation to correct that Bruce Fein is NOT associated with them:
MSNBC is using the gopasaur on the KO show!
I have an issue with my wife and a flat tire on Camelback Road, so gotta fly. But, the key takeaway here is that the memos being different is a good thing. There are now not just one, but multiple, instances of feedback the Bushie torture brigade not liking being suppressed, gathered up and destroyed. As i am want to do, I again state this is just destroying their good faith defense. It is in shreds.
[Good luck with the tire and the wife, bmaz!]
Yes, multiple is good. Perhaps Zelikow wrote the first, and then Waxman & England saw it, or heard about it, so they decided to collaborate. Also, the trio may have had a different mailing list in mind. If you are really into bureaucratic pushback, you look for multiple legitimate target audiences. Zelikow could only credibly address some people; but with the other two, they could address others that Zelikow did not have standing to address his first memo to. The more copies, the less possible a squelch becomes. Too bad Waxman had to endure a round of Addington intimidation. Must have been very unpleasant.
Bob in HI
O/T, Harman
Secrecy Expert: Harman Leakers Likely Committed Felony
Steven Aftergood, the director of the Project on Government Secrecy, confirmed to TPMmuckraker: “It seems crystal clear that if this was a FISA wiretap,” as appears to be the case, “then whoever disclosed it committed a felony.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi…..hp?ref=fp1
http://tinyurl.com/cl9cyo
You could tell Harman was coming out swinging from a position of strength. I think they probably have other problems too – with minimization and scope of surveillance orders as well d if the transcript is still around with preserving non-authorized intercepts of an Am citizen who is not target, etc. – and Harman knows that whoever trots forward gets into big trouble. That’s why she keeps pushing for it.
Illegally outing a CIA agent, illegal wiretapping, illegal destruction of White House email, illegally eradicating evidence of dissent, cooking up fraudulent evidence for going to war, and torture. Torture.
Why are these people not in jail already? Seriously!
ot
Move on doing a conversation with Howard DEan tonight
9.oo p.m et
http://www.moveon.org/drdean/?…..x&t=1
O/T sort of……John Dean interviews
“Harold Bruff is a former U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) attorney; currently, he is a professor of law (and former Dean) at the University of Colorado (Boulder) Law School. In his new book, Bad Advice: Bush’s Lawyers In The War On Terror.”
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20090501.html
Not really OT at all!
Fwiw, after reading that Q&A, it sure seems like some folks just can’t help themselves in excusing stuff like torture, warrantless wiretapping, non-reviewable infinite detention, etc.
Not bad lawyer folks to read that Professor’s take on things, just real darn busy. And heaven forbid these poor ol’ OLC lawyer folks should be subjected to prosecution or even disbarrment. Pfui!
And John Dean thinks this Professor’s take on things is “objective”. Hah!
check this out at balkinization about the structure of the olc
Why a Criminal Investigation does not mean the OLC Lawyers are Scapegoats on Torture
Brian Tamanaha
http://balkin.blogspot.com/200…..rs-as.html
As far as I’m concerned this tactic/maneuver/tool that was adopted is the key to the subversion of the constitution that allowed these people to accomplish everything they’ve done.Throwing all this bad law up for analysisis after being hidden under the rocks of state secret issues gave bushco enough time to steamroll over the checks and balances needed to stop em .Now it has to be sorted out and in the process some of it will remain forever.Things will never be the same
anybody seen this
let’s see what comes out of the hopper …
I asked about this a couple threads back, I think, and got no response. Is the “new” memo of Bybee referenced by Swanson new to the Wheelhouse, or merely a retread?
Bob in HI
It’s not new to me, but, even though I’m somewhat sympathetic to diarist’s point of view, I think his approach is counter-productive. For all the posturing done at Nuremburg about launching a war of agression being the worst war crime, it’s a war crime that’ll never be legitimately enforced. And, as much as it contradicts the plain text of the Constitution, the President’s ability to start wars is unchallenged in today’s constitutional system. In fact, I think the approach taken by the diarist is exactly what the war criminals in the Bush administration are counting on. The argumentation in the diary is completely divorced from political reality and practical implementation.
Every warring party claims self-defense and rarely is that claim 100% right or wrong. Furthermore, there’s no international institution capable of enforcing the proscription against agressive war when the agressor is a major power.
Torture, on the other hand, is a completely different matter, both practically and politically. Despite the obfuscations of the Bushies, there’s a fairly bright line about specific types of prohibited behavior. There’s also a broad international consensus that these prohibitions must be enforced, even when it’s inconvenient.
Agreed about the Dkos piece.
Every warring party claims self-defense and rarely is that claim 100% right or wrong.
This is a case in which the U.S. claim of ’self-defense’ against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq has been shown to be 100% wrong — and that those making the claim knew it to be a crock at the time.
Your points about lack of intl body to hold the rogue superpower accountable are correct, and the difference between this charge and torture. But if ever there was a case of a war of aggression, this is it. It’s my fond hope that investigations will bring out as verified fact the use of torture to gin up additional bogus “evidence” for the fraudulent claim of self-defense.
Seems to me that the problem with the reality of that is that Congress did allow this. Sickening as it is…
sounds like a few members
I don’t think Congress HAS the power to do that
they’re prohibited from granting their powers to any other office
but after further review, this is an outer skin of the onion, the torture justification memos are related to specific individual acts
the memo in the link is related to the general culpability for starting a war of agression (bush tried to bury his criminal culpability in a heap of legalese bullshit and mumbo jumbo there too, what a surprise)
interesting that references to saddam’s weapons “PROGRAMS” were happening so far back, before the invasion, in fact
that could be used in a general war crimes charge, showing that george knew his causus belli was bullshit almost a year before the attack (and the kabuki with the UN weapons inspectors)
Time for me to call it a day, but before I go, I have to say what a fantastic thread this has been!
Hat tips to you all!
Bleary-eyed and needing sleep…but I’m wondering if there were more than one version of the Zelikow memo based on the department/function which received it. Same underlying objections, but modified versions depending on ultimate recipients, and Waxman (DoD)/Bellinger (State Dept.) are hints as to which departments were targeted for the end product.
We also know that OVP’s office had a loss of emails for the period May 21 through June 4, 2005 (p. 20 of 23) — yet no other WH/EO department/function had the same loss during this period. NSC, for example, doesn’t appear to have any issues with missing emails during this time period.
As RevDeb has done, time for moving on from this place. I’ve sold our house, going back home tho I thought to be a US citizen I don’t want it naymore. Address as of next month is outside Auk with friends where work can be found easily for me. The countryside smelled like earth there and I think it still may. Good bye to a good man, Bill M.
Wouldn’t it be nice if all 17 documents from Gonzo’s Briefcase Safe got released as a set?
There would be Gonzo’s hand-written, ex-post facto notes from the Gang of 8 Meeting, where Jane Harman may have sold US out…
There would be a March 11, 2004 “Re-Certification” of the President’s Program, Torture Memos, Wire-tapping Memos, Unitary Executive Memos, Secretly Modified Executive Orders, Secret Military Orders, etc.
Basically everything that Bush did that was Extra-Constitutional – the Crown Jewels, so to speak – would likely be accounted for in that one cache of Bush’s Un-checked and Un-balanced Actions taken in Our Name.
Any story that would purport to tell the Truth about Bush and Cheney’s Power-Grab would have to account for the contents of Gonzo’s Briefcase.
And, it’s a ’safe’ bet that none of the 17 documents ever made it into any official archive files, either…
149 – the 2005 memos internally reference the 2002 memos.
It’s interesting how many folks may have purged testimony on this one. Take a look back through the Congressional transcripts for all the folks in the torture investigations about whether or not they’d seen dissenting opinions opposed to torture. It was common knowledge that such memos were circulating at DOD…but having them circulating at NSC and in OoP might not look so good if previous testimony was not truthful regarding this.