Where Is the “Legal Principles” Document?
One of the most important–but least sexy–passages revealed in yesterday’s release of the IG Report is this one, on page 22.
OGC continued to consult with DoJ as the CTC Interrogation Program and the use of EITs expanded beyond the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. This resulted in the production of an undated and unsigned document entitled, "Legal Principles Applicable to CIA Detention and Interrogation of Captured Al-Qa’ida Personnel.27 According to OGC, this analysis was fully coordinated with and drafted in substantial part by OLC. In addition to reaffirming the previous conclusions regarding the torture statute, the analysis concludes that the federal War Crimes statute, 18 U.S.C. 2441, does not apply to Al-Qa’ida "Because members of that-group are not entitled to prisoner of war status. The analysis adds that "the [Torture] Convention permits the use of [cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment] in exigent circumstances, such as a national emergency or war." It also states that the interrogation of Al-Qa’ida members does not violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments because those provisions do not apply extraterritorially, nor does it violate the Eighth Amendment because it only applies to persons upon whom criminal sanctions have been imposed. Finally, the analysis states that a wide range of EITs and other techniques would not constitute conduct of the type that would be prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendments even were they to be applicable:
The use of the following techniques and of comparable, approved techniques does not violate any Federal statute or other law, where the CIA interrogators do not specifically intend to cause the detainee to undergo severe physical or mental pain or suffering (i.e., they act with the good faith belief that their conduct will not cause such pain or suffering): isolation, reduced caloric intake (so long as the amount is calculated to maintain the general health of the detainees), deprivation of reading material, loud music or white noise (at a decibel level calculated to avoid damage to the detainees’ hearing), the attention grasp, walling, the facial hold, the facial slap (insult slap), the abdominal slap, cramped confinement, wall standing, stress positions, sleep deprivation, the use of diapers, the use of harmless insects, and the water board.
According to OGC, this analysis embodies DoJ agreement that the reasoning of the classified 1 August 2002 OLC opinion extends beyond the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah and the conditions that were specified in that opinion. [my emphasis]
It’s important for several reasons. First, it explains how CIA decided it was okay to torture detainees without first–as they had done with Abu Zubaydah–assuring DOJ that the detainee was truly a High Value Detainee and was "fit" to be tortured. It explains how a memo authorizing the torture of one person came to authorize an entire regime of torture.
It also explains why the CIA continued to claim that its torture program did not violate CAT. For years, Congress kept pushing CIA to get OLC to do a real assessment of whether the torture program violated CAT’s prohibition on cruel and inhuman treatment–that’s why, for example, Bradbury wrote the May 30, 2005 opinion. But it turns out all this time there was an undated, half-official document declaring the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment invalid for this program. And, at the same time, dismissing the War Crimes statute. Poof! One unsigned, undated document, and there go several critical laws governing detainee treatment.
Also, the document seems to answer Spencer’s question: when the CIA got "prolonged diapering"–which they hadn’t had time to okay for the August 1, 2002 Bybee Two memo–okayed. It appears in this document, so this may well be the "official" approval.
Now, since it’s undated, we don’t know when it was written. Footnote 27 says that it was attached to a document written on June 16, 2003, so it had to have been before that point. But if this document authorized the expansion of the torture program beyond just Abu Zubaydah, then it had to have been written much earlier. Even allowing for the CIA’s habit of authorizing their torture after the fact, it seems likely this was written in 2002 (perhaps after people started complaining of the the treatment of al-Nashiri?).
But what does it say that such a key document was not even signed, dated, or officially released by OLC? What does it say that we have to just take OGC’s word that it was written with the cooperation of OLC?
And what does it say that we have yet to see this document?
Update: Teach me to ask questions without getting to the end of the document dump. Here’s a draft of this–from April 2003. Note they were not sending this via fax. Were they trying to hide it from Yoo’s bosses at DOJ? Here’s the June 2003 copy referred to in the IG Report (which does appear to have been sent by fax, to Patrick Philbin).
Undated and unsigned: hallmarks of drafter who wishes to be unaccountable.
Yup. What’s interesting is it was written when Scott Muller was still GC, before Rizzo was acting. But I’d bet money this came out of work between Rizzo and Yoo. And, probably, Addington and Haynes.
I’d put my money on Addington and Haynes. It’s the kind of thing they’d hash out, then pass to Yoo and Rizzo so that it passes through the DOJ in some fashion rather than have it simply appear on Haynes’ desk as if it descended from heaven.
What it also means is that memo was likely hand delivered.
An undated, unsigned memo carries no weight. The same memo delivered by, oh, say Gonzo, carries much weight. Even if he takes it away with him afterward.
Most of the information about what was done is already out in the open. What they’re trying to protect now is WHO done it. Because those people lead directly to the White House and the OVP.
Obama could SOOOO easily bust this thing wide open by just charging Gonzo with perjury. Gonzo is a coward, he’ll roll on Bush to protect his own butt. Makes me wonder if Obama got Gonzo that Texas job to prevent Gonzo from writing a book.
Boxturtle (Not going to believe Deadeye’s book, but will enjoy reading the smackdown of Bush nonetheless)
Hand delivered, hmmm… What do you bet they clipped letters out of magazines and taped them to a plain piece of paper so that there is no hard copy on a computer anywhere or handwriting to be identified by the FBI? ; )
That’s too complicated for the mental giants who are behind this, phred.
More likely, they gave some child a crayon and told them that if they didn’t do what the brave good guys wanted that they would hurt the child’s mother.
Maybe Mitchell and Jessen advised, Addington encouraged, and Badwater’s fourth chimp deciderated?
But, perhaps I unfairly misjudge the humanity behind all this.
You are probably right, these guys didn’t do anything unless they inflicted suffering on someone else first.
Holder should recall Ashcroft’s words, “history won’t judge us kindly”. It won’t judge Holder kindly either. Covering up for those responsible for implementing the torture regime will be his legacy if he doesn’t change course soon…
Ah, but phred, there is the Sunstein axiom to consider.
Okay, we considered it (for what it was worth ….snap!!!).
Step up, Holder.
Step up, Obama.
And step up, American people, ‘cuz ultimately, “It Is Up To Us.”
(Proposed change to motto on US coinage)
What does it say?
My SWAG. It says that someone knew they were operating extralegally bigtime.
Beat me to it. That’s exactly what it says. No signature = no one can be held accountable for the document. Undated = they can pretend it was written at any time they need the cover, whether it was written at that time or not.
So even though it was undated and unsigned. Someone first read it. We need to know who that was. Then we start asking questions and walking it back, “who did you get it from”, one person at a time until we find out who wrote it…
So lets start with Helgerson, who did he get the document from? Or perhaps, we ask the person who stapled it to the 2003 document and go back from there…
Might it also be undated and unsigned so they could claim that one of the underlings broke the law and then inserted this letter into the file as a coverup ? A kind of firewall to protect the higher ups ?
Gah … this is sickening
The cover page is interesting. At least one and maybe as many as three special security classifications were redacted at the top. Also, notice that some of the route to names were redacted as well.
Boxturtle (Always interesting to know what they don’t want us to know)
This again reveals that the redactions are more about CYA than national security.
Bob in HI–>AZ
Anyone up for calling emailing, twitter the Diane Rehm show…they are talking about the document release and torture…this hour
Just had a comment make it threw yesterday having to do with Afghanistan.
Anyone want to try Lots of people listening
[email protected]
1-800-433-8850
http://wamu.org/programs/dr/
10:00CIA Interrogations of Detainees
Attorney General Eric Holder has appointed a prosecutor to investigate whether CIA interrogators or contractors may have violated anti-torture laws: An update on the Obama administration counter terrorism policies.
Guests
H. Bryan Cunningham, attorney; former deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council, legal advisor to the CIA, and federal prosecutor.
R. Jeffrey Smith, reporter, Washington Post
David Cole, professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center and author of “The Torture Memos: Rationalizing the Unthinkable”. Previous books include “Less Safe, Less Free,” and “Terrorism and the Constitution.”
YOU CAN ADVERTISE THE INCREDIBLE WORK DISCUSSIONS HERE AT FIREDOGLAKE WHEN YOU CALL ( have done this numerous times)
First, I’m waiting for the Rethugs to trot out David Vitter to tell us that prolonged diapering is not somethng to fear, but rather something pleasurable which makes an extended interrogation or discipline session more enjoyable. “So it could not be torture by any stretch of the imagination,” he will say with an ardent, fixated look and tone in his voice.
Second, and more to the point, the undated, unsigned statement of principles of legal interrogation document (or whatever title you want to put on it) sounds to me like the kind of thing which (a) was designed to be used to deflect or destroy accountability tracing back to the drafter and (b) was designed to be appended to the briefings of, or shown to and then taken back from, any Agency officers who were going to be involved in torturing people.
In other words, when you got read in to torturing people, you would get told or get to read a memo from the Office of General Counsel which says, “appended is an authoritative statement of the legal principles which govern interrogations”. The “principles” document would then be appended.
The net effect of this would be that the individual officers could then claim to have been presented with a document – as a part of their briefing – which said “We’ve had the lawyers look at all these laws and, to summarize for you non-lawyers (because you don’t need to go through all the legalese and don’t have the time anyway), it’s all got the OK from the lawyers. So no balking.”
It says that America’s government officials were fully aware of their crimes and sought only to foster inhumanity that would, they knew, would seep into the veins of the American public to dismiss any further progress toward the America that should be. I no longer believe Langston Hughes’ words: “…Let America be America again/the land that never was but must be.” The crimes of our forefathers are highly revered.
I’m going to sound like a broken record. Any chance the document is the fundamental outline of a compartmentalized program?
“Most important” I agree with. Least sexy? No way. Not when it is undated and unsigned. That’s like having a secret affair with lawlessness. Which is very Cheney-esque.
Rayne,
You do not sound like a broken record.
This passage strikes me as a ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass for many of the abusive ‘enhanced interrogation’ techniques, but clearly being beaten with a rifle butt, being choked to the point of losing consciousness (repeatedly), having threats of harm to family members (rape of the women, and death of children) isn’t exactly covered by this memo. Perhaps the special prosecutor can move up the chain of command to the ‘moral lepers’ at the top.
The only way to prevent things like this from occurring is to prosecute crimes at the top. Executive branch crimes should not go unpunished; we are a nation of laws, and one reason I pay taxes is to make sure the laws are followed, from bottom to top. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bybee, Yoo, Addington, and the whole lot’s historical record should be one of ignominy. I will be happier if the world knows we prosecute crimes against humanity and that those who authorized them are deprived of liberty.
Let’s find out “who” attached it to the June 16, 2003 document. Thay probably know of it’s origin and date of origin.
I don’t recall.
Boxturtle (There, I just saved the government another multimillion dollar investigation)
Tragic but funny BoxTurtle.
Great one, Box Turtle.
If we can’t leave ‘em wiser, then at least, let’s leave ‘em laughing.
(Seriously)
DW
on the Rehm show they just said that Durham is above reproach will not be partisan.
True. But he also has been working on other interrogation and torture issues for going on two years and has not accomplished squat.
So I would add “ineffectual” to that list of adjectives describing him.
Katty Kay (taking Diane’s place this morning) just said that these torture investigations could further undermine the CIA’s morale.
Boo-hoo. I cry for their morale.
Why the hell should anyone care that the CIA’s morale will suffer when they get reminded that they are supposedly civilized people who are supposed to act in a civilized manner?
I mean, what makes it so important that the CIA be bound by neither law, morality, nor common sense lest the poor, delicate flower of their morale suffer.
Can’t you just see it: a morose spy walking around, all Joe Btfsplk because he can’t violate basic principles of morality, decency, law or common sense in his pursuit of wrongdoers. As if government employment, benefits and retirement plans (not too shabby, by comaprison to other options out there), cash bonuses, the opportunity to climb the career ladder in the Agency, and the promise of lucrative post-retirement contracts working for a contractor (doing the same thing as while in government employment but for a multiple of his base pay) isn’t enough to keep their fucking morale intact and motivate them to do their job.
I thought these clowns were Patriots, willing to do all, endure all and suffer all sorts of pains out of their love for ‘Murca. Now, you’re telling me it’s all about the ability to be a totally amoral slug?
In reality, this whole “morale suffer” thing is the CIA analog to the cop who, when required to follow the law, instead goes on what’s called “sight patrol” – only busting what he sees and going to sleep so he sees nothing. It’s a form of extortionate insubordination.
The cure for that is blowing up a couple careers – those of the moderately egregious sleepers – not sucking the sh*t out of their asses to make them happy.
Katty Kay’s comment was lame and it actually sounded as if she meant what she said…yowser
Katty is making lots of excuses “the people out in the field did not know what was legal or illegal”
IF she really believes what she’s saying (about field people not knowing what’s legal or not – they tend to read lots of history, esp military history, and usually are well aware of Nuremburg and what it exposed) then she’s either an idiiot or naive beyond belief.
Katty Kay: The people out in the field didn’t know what was legal and illegal…
Gosh, wonder if that had anything to do with the people in the home office flat lying about what the law says:
From a 2008 Congressional Research Service report [.pdf] on the CAT and its applicability:
Katty Kay, I’ll stick with Col. Wilkerson. Pinning down the 1% would restore morale.
If 1% is creating an internal morale problem and threatens our intel community, then you address the one percent. You do not let it continue or ignore it and risk growth or malignancy of the 1 percent. This. Is. Cancer.
Just sent that question into the Rehm show
someone else sending in that response to the Rehm show will probably get threw. they have been more than kind to my questions and comments getting on
[email protected]
It’s not the fact of the investigation that ruins morale. Morale declines for different reasons in a case like this for different reasons, depending on who you are talking about. For those directly involved in breaking the law, it’s the prospect of being held accountable that ruins their morale; for those who knew or should have known about the lawbreaking, it’s the prospect of getting swept up along with the lawbreakers for not taking actions to stop them; and for those who had no connection with the lawbreaking at all, it’s the realization that they’ve been working with and for a bunch of lawbreakers.
The same thing happened in Houston at Enron, at churches where a pastor is investigated for child abuse, and in a million other places. In that regard, the CIA is very, very ordinary.
And one way or another, they need to get over it. The best way to do that is to cooperate with the investigation to restore the honor of their work.
yes
The behavior of people in the CIA is ordinary (however much it is not) and needs to be subject to precisely the same scrutiny as anyone else’s, as you say so well, Peterr.
DW
What invariably causes morale in an organization to go to shit is when:
It’s the immunizing the higher-ups which really gnaws.
Breaking – Looking In Mirrors Destroys Morale at CIA & DOJ Obama, Republicans and Centrist Democrats are Working on Legislation to Outlaw Ownership of Mirrors Esteemed pundit Glen Beck:
After massive destruction at Red Roof and Mariott chains, and the unfortunate incident of a man who dropped explosives in the James River because he was worried that CIA torturers might see their reflection, Mr. Beck has clarified that he did not actually mean for anyone to destroy mirrors. Just to not let them exist.
/probably s
Waaaah!! We shouldn’t prosecute soldiers who commit heinous crimes against humanity because it’ll ruin troops’ morale. We shouldn’t prosecute contractors who ripped us off delivering services to our troops because it’ll discourage them from providing services. We shouldn’t prosecute elected officials who lied to us because they’ll stop doing their job.
What a crock of crap, Katty Kay. Are you a plant or a payola pundit? Because you’re no journalist. Doesn’t sound like it occurred to her that the white hats in CIA may be disgusted and offended by the unprosecuted lawbreaking and that the black hats are the only ones who may be whining about their poor, beleaguered, criminal morale.
yeah, which is comforting. but scott horton also points out that he is also not terribly senior, which is not so comforting. we need someone who’ll be senior enough to stand up and equal to the AG.
holder played is so safe with this pick. actually, mukasey’s pick. a republican already in place and on the beat. he can wash his hands of anything, erm, uncomfortable.
That purported lack of partisanship got us only so far in the Plame leak/Rove investigation. We now have Ari Fleischer and Karl Rove on non-stop network access, saying and doing whatever, whenever, as the upshot.
Doesn’t really matter if Durham himself is partisan or not.
You’ll note, no doubt, that the 2007 Bradbury OLC opinion no longer refers to the use of diapers. Now it is “a disposable undergarment designed for adults with incontinence or enuresis.”
I posted a diary up at Kos noting the conspicuous absence of the Habibullah murder at Bagram. He was clothed in a CIA undergarment when he died.
If the analysis was coordinated, there will be drafts, emails, faxes, and delivery logs. It really won’t be that hard to pin down.
Almost like the “V” pattern investigators look for after a fire to find the point of origin. Flames go up and then out.
Then Katty needs to add to her comment that she believes our people in the field receive piss poor training if they do not know what was legal or illegal.
Now, my guess is, a comment about crappy training will cause an uproar.
I haven’t seen this discussed, and my apologies if it has.
http://www.healthhype.com/bowe…..nt-it.html
Sudden Stress and Bowel Incontinence
It is known that strong fear, unpleasant surprise, pain, gross scene or other strong stimuli or feelings may cause temporary bowel incontinence – an inability to prevent the passage of the stool.
Strong sensory stimuli may cause excitation of the vagus nerve and pelvic nerves (parasympathetic nerve) that stimulate large intestinal motility (peristalsis) and push the stool toward the anus. At the same time, depression of the sympathetic nerves may cause relaxation of the internal anal sphincter (the muscle that keeps the anus closed) resulting in the involuntary bowel movement. Described mechanism is a part of “fight or flight” or “combat or escape” response to stress, in which flight (parasympathetic) response has prevailed.
Bladder incontinence may appear at the same time, since the passage of the urine is controlled by the same nerves as the passage of the stool (Picture 1).
It’s called “Scaring the shit out of him”.
And you thought that was just a colloquialism….
I heard some turdish commentor on the radio this morning trivializing death threats and power drill noises as merely meant to “frighten” the objects of interrogation, and for him, frightening a suspect was small potatoes when *ooga-booga* the scary specter of 9/11 is contemplated. Another Jack Bauer fan, I guess.
America has a Dark Side, and we’ve been seeing a lot of it for the past 8 years.
Bob in HI–>AZ
This post totally justifies my reasons for supporting EW’s work – both through word and deed.
For anyone who may not have contributed, please consider that EW is beholden to no one and nothing except the truth!
Amen! And pass the collection plate!
I may not be posting blogs or making many comments right now. But daily I am thanking EW for her analysis of what we know and her ability to point to what we don’t know. And kudos to all who gather here to read and contribute to her work!
TheraP,
Hope you are doing okay?
Thanks for your EW comment.
I am doing just great, klynn. Life is good. I determined a couple months ago that I had written all that I had to say (for now). But I continue to check a few places. And this is one. (I have recommended EW and this group over and over and will continue to do so.)
If anyone ever wants to read an account of being a prisoner, both in solitary and slave labor, this book, while very religious (and you can pass over those parts) contains some of the best writing about how destructive it is simply to hold someone captive with no recourse for any kind of appeal: what it means to be deprived of one’s freedom, subjected to interrogations for years, falsely accused, etc. The mere conditions of captivity under these circumstances, as I’ve written over and over, are by themselves cruel and unusual, equal to torture. Whatever bad treatment is added on to that is just so much more hay on the same war crime stack. (Should anyone want pertinent paragraphs from it, I would be happy to type them out and pass them along.)
Peace to all. I’m in a good place. We all have our role to play. (I’m doing a lot of meditating.)
To Mr. EW: Major Kudos!
Glad you are okay. Take care. Keep coming back when you can.
Sibel Edmonds can shed light on this and other topics. Who will depose her next?
Well at least we have an answer to that age old question. Are some people more equal than others?
-G
You know EW, this document find, the more I think about it, is as big as your 183 find.
Note my update–two copies of this were included in the document dump.
Similar classification marks at top of both documents you’ve cited in your update:
TOP SECRET/ [redacted] /NOFORN / X1although the June ‘03 doc looks more like an X-forward stroke than X1; this may only be due to handwritten classification.
X1 means no automatic declassification for reason number 1, which I believe means “1) reveal an intelligence source, method, or activity, or a cryptologic system or activity” according to Public Citizen’s analysis of the EO 13292.
If we assume the redacted info is a compartmentalized program, just how much have we seen of the program now? can it really remain intact?
You’re correct. But X1 would seem not to apply to the contents of the memo. There’s another code for “would embarass us diplomatically”, X6 or X7 I think.
Wonder if that 6 or 7 is partially redacted to make it look like a 1.
Boxturtle (X1 classification is clearly an outright lie)
Actually, I wonder whether the classification changed from X1 to X for this content (or for this portion of the compartment) between the earlier docs marked X1 and the later memo marked X.
In other words, methods had been disclosed (reason 1) in the time between documents and only the matter of auto-declassification was addressed.
(Reason 6 is the embarrassment to foreign entities/countries, reason 7 is threat to top dogs of the administration, by the way.)
FWIW, the redaction in the classification, i.e., TS/[redacted]/NOFORN
would likely (almost certainly) be the codeword name for the compartment where this information was squirreled away.
It’s a big enough redaction for there to be more than one classification there. We still don’t know the codename for the torture program, I doubt it fits under the Stellar Wind umbrella.
Boxturtle (If we knew the right word, an email search might be much more interesting)
I seriously doubt it would be “STELLAR WIND”, as using one codeword for all the illegal activities of the admin would contravene the very purpose of compartmentalizing the information – to limit the distribution to the very few people allowed to see a particular little corner of the big picture.
I suspect there’s a general codeword-named compartment for the torture program (which would only be accessible to those cleared to see the whole of the torture program), a specific codeword-named compartment for each individual captive put into the torture program (subordinate to the first, but allowing access to only those people who were allowed to know about that particular captive and his torture), and probably a codeword compartment for what I’ll call “developmental” work on the torture program – R&D to find new and innovative ways of torturing information out of people – and another for briefing interrogators/torturers into what they can and cannot do. That’s how I’d set it up if I was running things.
But, beyond that, they likely have a whole glossary (or syllabary) of codewords to name different compartments, some of which are “real” compartments and some of which are phony or “null” compartments, the latter having been created to create a false trail. If you read your spy novels, you’ll know that there’s someone deep inside CIA whose whole job is to keep a list of codewords and, when the phone rings and someone says “I need a codeword”, to give them one and then cross that word off the list as having been “used”. But their job is not to know what those codewords mean.
Take a gander at page 3 of this 6 page PDF entitled OLC Vaughn Index # 174 Undated Notes.
There you will see an accidentally unredacted classification and codeword of: TOP SECRET/CRU/GST
The “TOP SECRET” part is obvious. The “CRU” stands for Classification Review Unit.
The real juicy bit is the acronym “GST”.
See Dana Priest’s December 30, 2005 4 page article “Covert CIA Program Withstands New Furor” for the scoop on the “GST” acronym:
Nice work, MadDog.
Assuming CRU/GST is the missing bit, I wonder why they’d redact CRU, though…? Why not just strike out if CRU was part of the original classification?
And does the CRU/GST bit fit the redaction space in the Bradbury memos?
Hey MadDog, check this out when you have a chance. I’m wondering about that GST designation after reading this.
See above.
The Lockheed job listing is for a paralegal or admin person that has the requisite clearance to process all the paper turned over or seized by the US Attorney for the Passaro case that just ended: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14377265/
Thank you Mad Dog and Rayne for the whole GST business (and you, too, Dana Priest).
Along with other docs I’d like to see, I’d list Physical Pressures Used In Resistance Training and Against American Prisoners and Detainees, and Al Qaeda Resistance Contingency Training: Contingency Training for Personnel Based on Recently Obtained Al Qaeda Documents (undated). Both docs are mentioned in footnotes in the SASC report. They both were written before or by early 02. The latter is certainly Mitchell and Jessen’s report on the Al Qaeda “manual”. The former is, I think, a document by Jessen, but am not sure. I wonder if ACLU or CCR has requested these docs via FOIA.
I’d like to compare both with Legal Principles Applicable to CIA Detention and Interrogation of Captured Al-Qa’ida Personnel. If, as the IG report states, OTS was vetting the issues for OGC at CIA, then they must have been working or in touch with OLC as well. In fact, I wouldn’t be shocked to see that someone on OLC was also CIA/OTS. Addington, perhaps. I have not seen this suggested before. But historically, it is not unusual for CIA to have personnel working in other agencies, particularly DoD. Why not OLC, too? Or elsewhere in the White House.
See post(s) above yours. Start six posts up.
“Skimpy”
I did see a number of similar help wanted entries with that acronym when I was googling GST.
Remember that SAP codewords have two parts: unclassified and classified.
STELLAR WIND was the unclassified name for NSA’s domestic surveillance programs, yes. But the classified name – and the classified sub-compartments within that, with their respective caveats – remain undisclosed.
Not everything has come to light. And that was 2005.
Your suggestion of finding out the (unclassified) name of the interrogation SAP by searching e-mails is futile at best. CIA personnel would never mention the classified name in cables or JWICS email, and the contractors are predominately former military intelligence and JSOC personnel, who refer to SAPs in rather obtuse ways that you wouldn’t understand yet permits them to talk about things in the open (like a bar).
Where I work rhymes with CIA.
Yes, the redacted text in between is a compartmentalized program, also known as a SAP (Special Access Program).
– The GST classification stands for “Government Sanctioned Tactics”. Unclassified codeword for compartments are the flashy ones (DESERT SHIELD, DESERT STORM, VALIANT SPEAR). When they contain additional compartments at TOP SECRET, they are given caveats. The caveat names are boring and intentionally made to sound as innocuous as possible. Not for sinister purposes but to keep things simple for the 25 year old kid slaving away on JWICS typing up cables and after-actions to McLean.
– CRU, or Classification Review Unit, is not a clandestine entity. They now reside within ODNI. When they were within CIA their entire purpose in life was to review, redact, declassify and archive important documents and cables – not create them, nor participate in the drafting or policy behind them. They’re glorified librarians.
On the released docs it reads:
TOP SECRET / [redacted] / NOFORN / X1
The classified doc would read:
TOP SECRET / GST-xxxxxxx-1 / NOFORN / X1
With the “xxxxxxxx” denoting specific “shops” within the Special Access Program. The “-1″, “-2″, “-3″ and so forth denote specific delineation within the program itself. For example, NSA cytologists present (common) would be entitled to their own “-1″ or “-2″ to differentiate between CIA and borrowed (or contractor) personnel.
There were many misconceptions here. The only thing accurate was the true meaning of NOFORN.
GST is a sub-program within the Special Access Program itself. It ranges from the analytic support in the field during the interrogations (common) to a sub-program exclusively staffed with contractors (also common). Within that sub-compartment lies a JSOC/SSB/NCS rendition program that cooperates closely with Israel and Egypt, specifically.
FDL/EW readers: Google SSB. Research JSOC and it’s relationship to NCS and the fact that they cull their personnel from JSOCs ranks. Also keep in mind that the contractor just convicted of beating a detainee with a flashlight until he died was military. Was he a Reservist? Perhaps a Reservist, attached to a JSOC unit but on loan to CIA as a contractor? JSOC has a long history of cooperating or leading CIA assets in theater. Remember who was SecDef during the time frame in question. Come to your own conclusions. And be prepared to accept this goes deeper than these documents reveal, and that the true horrors were not committed by CIA, but by…other entities of equal or greater anonymity. And no, you haven’t heard about those yet. But the indictments ensure you will, in due time.
CIA is complicit but not the main aggressor here. This onion has many layers and if you’ve smelled it before, you know what lies beneath. Good luck.
Cordially,
“Skimpy”
Skimpy
Isn’t this the still redacted section of SASC which says that some JSOC guys said they had special permission–and were using techniques that CIA wouldn’t use–to basically beat the shit out of people?
When you combine that with the CIA’s own conclusion that their worst abuses were done on the early screening interrogations, not the long-term ones, you’ve got JSOC and CIA in the field with zero supervision, the easy ability to bury (literally) the bodies or at least prevent a real autopsy, and that’s where the deaths come in.
Plus, you’ve got Cheney claiming JSOC doesn’t have to be briefed to Congress.
Is that where this heads?
I have to tread carefully here, as everything I have discussed so far is not illegal and can be found in the public domain (although it would be hard to compare comprehension of documents vs institutional knowledge).
My take?
There are at least three Special Access Programs relating to rendition and interrogation:
1) GST and its umbrella of interrogations conducted by CIA and contractors
2) COPPER GREEN, a task force within a task force that is DIA / JSOC
3) the present day incarnation of one or both. Which – if they were smart – is a SAP, run out of JSOC. Thus bypassing Congressional, Senatorial and WH oversight. Regardless of who’s in office.
This precludes it being revealed or leaked in the future, as they had to know CIA would eventually face the music. They also know that subsequently CIA would be staffed and run by Obama Administration political appointees. The CIA director and his staff rotate out with each administration. The administration itself is refreshed every four years.
This was probably Addington, Haynes and McCrystal’s doing in the wee hours of January 20th (as McCrystal was Commanding General of JSOC at the time)
Military officers retain access to SAPs as long as they hold the requisite clearance (TS/SCI/xx is a requirement for General and above). And – like GEN McCrystal, ADM Mullen, VADM McRaven and LTGEN Boykin – you can go pretty far if you’re careful enough.
I think it is alive and well, within the belly of JSOC. I think there are three heads to this snake and one has been cut off. The other two remain. One the public knows little about (Camp Nama / colored and numbered task forces) and the other they know absolutely nothing about – which is the intention.
We won’t know unless an indicted CIA employee (or contractor) flips and points Durham in that direction.
“When you combine that with the CIA’s own conclusion that their worst abuses were done on the early screening interrogations, not the long-term ones, you’ve got JSOC and CIA in the field with zero supervision, the easy ability to bury (literally) the bodies or at least prevent a real autopsy, and that’s where the deaths come in.”
Correct.
CIA was a useful patsy for JSOC and its intelligence apparatus (which is autonomous from the intelligence community) long before it was a patsy for the Bush Administration.
The CIA is subject to oversight. JSOC and its secret squirrels are not. Said secret squirrels and the interrogators from DIA knew this and played it fast and loose, knowing they would be held totally unaccountable and CIA would fall on the sword when the music started to play.
Skimpy – just to date myself – I worked at Arlington Hall!!!
Glad to have you on-board. Keep up the great posts.
You old dog, you.
I’m not USMC, though. Really.
et seq
A lot of that is public, but that’s kind of like saying the pieces of a puzzle are all there on the table – it makes a difference to get the corners put in and the sky and ocean pieces separated etc.
Just make sure you’re on the safe side of what you put up here, and after the AIPAC rationale, that we’re on the safe side of getting what you share.
*g*
So far most of the pushback on the worst of the worst has been from sections of the military. I guess we’ll have to wait it out to see what happens over the long haul, but I hope your call on some of that is right.
All I will write is that Mary will be here soon and I will support what she has to write as “correct” due to the faxing of this doc to Philbin in June 2003.
O/T for a bit of comic respite … Ghouliani mulls running for Governor of NY – from NYT
NOFORN ..is “no foreigners” btw .. as to who is allowed access to the material .. or whom it might get shared with ..
and .. don’t touch that dial [remember dials] folks today’s episode of “the theater of the absurd” is being brought to you by the republican party..
Not for Foreign Release
Perhaps FormerFed could help with some of these acronyms and so forth. Please chime in if you can, FormerFed.
Sorry I’m late to the party. I was expressing myself to AMEX because they automatically canceled my Blue card account for non-use. Told them that was not a very nice thing to do to a 40 year customer without contacting him first.
In re to the classification, the redacted part is surely the compartment, and NOFORM just says don’t release to foreigners.
Nonforn.
You mean like guys born in Kenya? /s
I’m not sure why not – they seem more intent on making sure no one bears consequences than the domestics /nots
That is interesting. No foreigners. The classification alone speaks guilt or an awareness of breaking the law.
Because, it makes no sense to demand an international coalition of forces to fight terrorism and then classify docs irt the fight of terror as NOFORM.
I realize all here think Addington penned this. Could a foreign party have penned it; thus, having it unsigned?
Not sure I would go that far. NOFORN is pretty standard stuff. There are also subcategories like NOFORN except UK, Aus, NZ, etc.
My feeling is that this stuff is all home grown by the nutcases that thought they were the tough guys, but knew nothing about the military or the FBI or, at least some of, the CIA professionals.
Unsigned, whether dated or not, an opinion is an “opinion” that can be relied upon. Lawyers and accountants notoriously issue them all them time, as “Drafts”, most often with a legend that specifically denies the reader the right to rely on their contents.
That status does several things. It can indicate a work in process that hasn’t incorporated all the relevant facts or analysis. More ominously, it can be an opening gambit, telegraphing what such an opinion would say, but implying that the contents are “subject to negotiation”. In business, these negotiations are often sub rosa, indirect and unspoken but clearly understood:
“Retain me for a longer period or at a higher price, or engage my firm to do other or all your lucrative business, and I’ll give you my youngest and inexperienced auditors [who won’t catch much] or my most experienced lawyers [who will catch it all]. Replace me or engage a competing firm, and this will be a long, expensive, drawn-out process your board will regret, etc.”
Sometimes, the drafts are never replaced with the real thing because the work takes a tangent and the final product is redesigned. But the draft nevertheless creates an implied reliance, despite its explicit warnings, which at least shields low-level staff. In BushWorld and now ObamaWorld, it does the opposite in that it shields the senior staff who explicitly know better. That’s the heart of corruption.
Correction: Unsigned, an opinion is NOT an “opinion” that can be relied upon.
To me, only three pages means Addington wrote it. That’s how he spoke when questioned by Congress, short and condescending. Yoo would have tried to support his claims with nonsensical comparisons.
From another introduction and analysis of the Convention:
Any lawyer who produced this document did so in full knowledge that he was mischaracterizing the law. The idea of prosecuting people because they went beyond the parameters of OLC guidance, giving such “guidance” the status of genuine legal guidance, is obscene.
Dick “Dick” is not pleased that Holder is appointing a prosecutor for torture.
I should add that SAPs, by design are separated into four sub-catagories depending on what they pertain to:
Acknowledged
Unacknowledged
Waived
Executive
To be clear, these are sub-compartments, within the sub-compartments, which themselves are marked with unclassified and classified caveats. GST is merely the unclassified name for a classified caveat with a sub-program that is TOP SECRET.
Start digging.
To add:
I think that as the probe of CIA progresses, if any detours are taken in the military’s direction or there is an attempt to shift blame to the military, the military intelligence officer community will come out swinging.
MI officers and CIA case and paramilitaries are worlds apart, in terms of moral compass and the propensity to bend and break rules. Where as the latter tends to idolize a Jack Bauer or Michael Weston-esque persona, the former tends to be more of a Jethro Gibbs character.
Military officers do not take kindly to children causing mischief and jeopardizing their retirement. They will join with the Judge Advocate Corps of the Navy and Army to leak. They went to college and are refined gentlemen, and refined gentlemen don’t behave this way. You laugh, but that is the mentality.
Also look for enlisted Marines and officers of the special operations variety to break their silence and assist in prosecution. Marines hold themselves to a very high standard and did not like this or approve, contrary to popular belief. Mostly it was the Army and Air Force officer corps and civilian appointees at DoD who were complicit. The Marines as a community did not agree on moral and patriotic grounds and that is why Pace left as Joint Chiefs of Staff, later to be replaced by Mullen (who was unaware and when informed, kept his mouth shut).
I hear what you’re saying, SP. I’ve made the JSOC connection myself, though with no where near the comprehension you are expressing (if not, you can look at my articles here at FDL). I made Roger Aldrich as a key link between Mitchell/Jessen, and whatever group of Special Ops people, working as I thought with CIA, and the administration. I will soon tie some CIA people to Boykin and others at JSOC (including a CIA psychiatrist that had researched SERE).
What I hear you saying is that this other group, the Strategic Support Branch (SSB) is heavily involved or implicated. Am I right?
Others here could look at these two WashPo articles from 2005 by Barton Gellman:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..Jan22.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..Feb12.html
The Mitchell-Jessen project originated as a SAP, including the set-up of the org, and the origination of the techniques, but compartmentalized, yes? Did Jessen not really author the exploitation plan? He complained in SASC testimony he wasn’t the only author, but got cut off, in a way that made me think he wasn’t supposed to say more. It’s unremarkable if it’s Jessen, but more interesting if it’s Aldrich, or someone in SSB, or JSOC, or OTS/CIA.
Right track? Wrong track?
I meant, it’s unremarkable if Mitchell who co-authored with Jessen (unremarkable in the sense we could guess that). It’s far more significant if we knew the other hands involved in assembling this thing.
Also, SP, if you’re still here, is SSB then associated with Project 22B? I don’t know if you can reasonably even talk of such things.
SSB is run out of DIA, and has SAPs within. But many of it’s activities are overt and above-board. People with the skill-sets in HUMINT, close-in SIGINT etc are from the same community as JSOC and SOCOM and they all run in the same circles and drink beers/barbecue as a family.
22B is a fallacy and P2OG never got of the ground. Both were in the famed “PowerPoint stage” and never became anything more than that. As the media coverage has intensified I’m starting to think two different sources are talking about two different things – P2OG on one hand, CIA programs on the other.
The narrative is that they are one when in reality they are two totally different, unrelated programs.
The techniques themselves were originated in VN era. They were used through the 1980s and survived the purge of secret squirrels from the Army (or so they thought). During the Clinton years, they found a home in JSOC and stayed there.
CIA contracted with Jensen, et al because they legitimately didn’t have that capability within their ranks; they weren’t lying about having to hire people for that. They really didn’t have that capability in-house.
JSOC did and had already launched a parallel effort in P-stan and Afghanistan from mid-September 2001 onwards.
Need to go back and revisit this older post.
What’s the chances we’re dealing with an ACCM and not an SAP since SAPs are supposed to be reported to Congress? or did Bush simply negate the reporting requirement with pixie dust?
Why report what doesn’t exist (without proof)?
Rayne – this was an unacknowledged SAP. Prior to the leaks, not even someone like Brennan or Rice knew the full scope and that was the intention from the onset.
Only the originating classification entity can see, access and grant access to it all.
And I think we’ve all come to the conclusion that was the OVP.
Going ACCM would assure there was no documentation and no reporting requirements, not even pixie dust from EO 13292, that’s my point.
Although it’s the pixie dust in EO 13292 which allowed OVP to do whatever it liked in terms of classification.
Something also happened between Bradbury’s memos to Rizzo which changed the X1 to X status on some redacted program, which suggests that some program became acknowledged at some level. But an ACCM could still be running around right now, without any such change and no supporting dox.
Many thanks Skimpypenguin for all the informative commentary!
Boykin and his remaining JSOC acolytes scare the shite out of me, and with good reason.
And doG knows that Rumsfeld felt like Tenet & Co. stepped on his weenie with the initial Afghanistan takedown lead mostly by CIA pukes, and coupled with the fact that Rummy and PapaDick Cheney communicated by mindmeld, it is unsurprising that Rummy & Co. (Cambone, Feith, et al.) wanted and got their own worldwide sandbox to play direct action ops in.
Whether it is SSB folks wandering around Afghanistan or the Horn of Africa, or Copper Green folks “interrogating” Iraqis, they are definitely off the leash, and even more definitely not under any particular Congressional or even Executive branch oversight.
EW and everyone. We have found a person in Skimpy that is current in this stuff and I certainly defer to his/her information. Great posts Skimpy!!
Okay, Mr. Penguin; let’s try a different approach, leaving off the ultimate in hidden programs and those which might still be operative…
Something must have been happening with regards to SAPs and control of same because there were more changes to processes in the last eight years than previous years. DDoD 5205.7 dd. Jan. 5, 2006 canceled 5205.7 dd. Jan. 13, 1997, and in turn, 5205.7 Change 1 dd. Feb. 25, 2008 modified its predecessor. The directive includes the chain of command which is responsible for oversight of SAPs.
The question(s): if called to testify in a closed door session before the Senate Intelligence OR the Senate Armed Forces Committee, would any of the chain of command acknowledge SAPs which were to have been reported to the Gang of Eight?
Would the chain of command acknowledge in a closed door session to the Gang of Eight?
Are there other entities to which the chain of command would acknowledge any and all SAPs in closed door sessions?
They’ll deny everything, and with good reason:
Who can prove the SAPs even exist? No paper trail.
“Mr. Senator, that’s classified.”
“Congressman – that’s classified.”
Who will testify they were ordered to use torture?
No one that wants a job in three years is going to do that.
You see how many Clinton appointees came to work in the Obama White House, and those two camps hate each other. You better believe the next Republican administration will be staffed with people from 1998 – present. Meaning – Bush-era national security personnel in 2016/2020 Republican DoD, CIA, State, Justice and FBI. Why wouldn’t they? Look at the Reagan-era people in the White House right now.
Who is going to break the unspoken code within JSOC circles of admitting nothing, deny everything? No one. No one under the age of 70 because they’ll be tainted forever, in the way Colin Powell is tainted. They violated a brotherhood. If you see a spate of murders in North Carolina or Florida, that means special operations personnel tried to come forward and their peers intervened and made it go away. Be on the lookout for that.
As for admissions in closed sessions: I doubt it. You have to understand the mentality of some of the intelligence community (not all; some).
If it comes down to:
1) lying under oath and being loyal to the past administration or
2) coming clean
they will lie and feign ignorance.
If you’re a 45 year old CIA, DIA or military intelligence interrogator all you have in life is loyalty. And friendships that probably landed you your job (and can land you contract jobs because you have friends that work for them). They will choose loyalty up until the very end or a major indictment. Why? Because, if, say someone like Elizabeth Cheney becomes SecDef, National Security Advisor or Vice President (all plausible scenarios) they will be rewarded for that loyalty. And they know that. These are career field operatives who in some cases have beat detainees to death. Many are career special operations with tours in places like Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan and Iran. Eight months, a year, two years in prison would mean little and hurt even less.
And upon their release? Contractors would still hire them, and don’t be naive and think otherwise. They still have a skill-set that’s in demand. That’s the reality.
Sad as it is, unless there is a paper trail (a definitive, unclassified paper trail that can actually prove what is readily apparent) nothing will happen. Especially not to JSOC.
Then the Republicans would scream “we’re demonizing our military! This administration doesn’t value the sacrifices of our nations military!”
And EW/FDL readers know that will be the refrain.
In other words, get the documentation.
By that I don’t mean orders. I mean other forms of evidence.
And we’re going to have to make sure Baby Dick is addressed as well.
Correct.
It remains to be seen how far Gates (ready to retire), McCrystal (a contender for Joint Chiefs of Staff if he does well in Afghanistan) and the President (who has his plate full) would let this probe go. The origin of interrogation policy and the real story of the rendition program lies within the Department of Defense. Exposing JSOC and DIAs role in it, and declassifying or releasing lightly redacted documentation that could be used in a trial or Senate/Congressional hearing is the only way.
Anything else, and we’ll have TF-197 running around in Pakistan, slapping the shit out of people. And guess who they’ll answer to? No one…expect the National Security Council in President Palin (or Gingrich)’s White House.
I know that EW/FDL readers don’t want that. Many of you just threw up.
Thanks very much, you’ve been a big help. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any other guidance (I’m sure you’ll figure out how to do that).
There will be a lot of this:
http://video.nytimes.com/video…..ption.html
And if you think that’s melodramatic…so be it. But that is the mentality. Many of them have probably already left or are leaving. A quick search of Crystal City, Arlington, McLean and Falls Church real estate should give you a snapshot of how many people are renting out condos or 3/4 bedroom houses on short notice.
Many will flee and utilize the training they use to infiltrate foreign countries to aid them in getting out. If there are sympathetic personnel within ODNI and CIA (which there are) they can and probably already are moving money around, buying vehicles not in their name, duplicate identities, etc.
If you disagree with that assessment, put yourselves in their shoes and ask “why wouldn’t I?”. The ones that do stay or openly admit they are guilty will be the ones to watch. There will be lots of Oliver North moments where they try to portray their autonomy and expertise as being reason enough to break the law. The higher the subpoenas go the more interesting the testimony will be. If you were alive for Iran-Contra, this will be far more riveting television. North and company knew they would be pardoned. This time, there is no guarantee of a pardon: the administration they complied with isn’t even in the White House any more.
So they will be desperate. Some will testify, out of ego and arrogance; most will flee.
Oh, I’m certain there will be a lot of the Jack Bauer response, and I’m sure many of them are going to be Lenny and his brethren. They are dangerous because they will not only flee. They will foment. They are what give me real pause about the course we need to take; they’ve likely already been instrumental in delaying investigation.
We’ve seen this movie before, though. There are still war criminals in South America, and the remaining elderly of their kind will now have new company. Our challenge will be deciding whether those who flee are worth chasing or if it’s simply worth getting to the truth.
Personally, I think there should be some serious prosecutions, but it should not be the grunt on the line in most cases. It should be the persons who conspired to create a program and projects which violated our Constitution and violated treaties to which were parties; without such prosecutions, I don’t think intel or military culture will change. (I cannot help but think of Lynndie England here, too obedient and easily swayed, too readily enthralled. The movie counterpoint to “24″ is “Standard Operating Procedure.” There are those who simply knew better, were capable of better, and failed us, who need to answer our questions at a minimum.)
But the culture will truly remain unchanged if we do not get to the truth, if we do not ferret out the shadow government and its apparatus which have undermined the interests of the country for their own benefit. There must be a concerted effort from top-down (prosecution of conspirators) and bottom-up (exposure of the truth) to realize real change.
There are those who’ll continue to argue that exposure will hurt our country. Other countries already know quite well how rotten we have become; it’s the root of terrorist attacks against us. And other countries are using their knowledge of our rot against us politically. Why not simply get it out in the open and be done with it?
Still thinking about this post and thread. Read article by Chris Hayes in The Nation; these two grafs particularly good:
Article specifically uses the word “rot” at one point; can’t help thinking of “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man,” and how co-opted the intel community has become by interests which aren’t the ones intel was originally meant to serve.
We’re going to have to air it out to get past it, we’re going to have to reset the focus, and we’re going to keep digging to do it.