Was Everyone In The CIA Involved In Torture?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War on Terror
Posted on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 05:57:52 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

If this fellow is to be believed, apparently so:

Mark M. Lowenthal, an intelligence veteran who left a senior post at the C.I.A. in 2005, said Mr. Obama’s decision to exclude Mr. Brennan from contention for the top job had sent a message that “if you worked in the C.I.A. during the war on terror, you are now tainted,” and had created anxiety in the ranks of the agency’s clandestine service.

Yes, Mr. Lowenthal, if you were involved in torture, if you defended torture, as Mr. Brennan did (his empty protestations to the contrary notwithstanding) you are tainted, for life. I do not presume Mr. Lowenthal's libel of the entire CIA is accurate, but I DO agree with him that torture enablers are tainted. And rightly so.

Speaking for me only

< Marilyn Musgrave Robocall Attacks Liberals | We're The Centrists Now >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Was Everyone In The CIA Involved In Torture? | 32 comments (32 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

as posted in the open thread (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by lilburro on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 06:16:09 PM EST

The Columbia Journalism Review does a good breakdown of this article, which is a disgrace. Here.

Would that someone in the CIA would tell me exactly what about the CIA we can criticize. Tenet struck a deal with Bush that the CIA wouldn't be blamed for 9/11. Rodriguez destroyed the waterboarding tapes for which he deserves some legal response. A ton of intelligence work is contracted out with little accountability. But heaven forbid we suggest the CIA requires radical change. Heaven forbid we suggest there is something wrong with the CIA. And heaven forbid we say that people who have publicly defended the policies Obama opposes do not belong in an Obama CIA.

The whining on the part of publicity-loving and apparently job hunting ex CIA staff is astonishing.

Do you think there was a bit more "anxiety (5.00 / 4) (#3)
by HenryFTP on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 06:42:05 PM EST

in the ranks of the agency's clandestine service" when the Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States and Assistant to the President betrayed the identity of a member of the clandestine service for publication in the press?

The Bush Administration demoralized the CIA in numerous far-reaching ways. Rebuilding the professional integrity of the CIA and our other intelligence services will require light to be shed into some dark places, not a whitewashing to obscure the rot. That strongly suggests that the new DNI and DCI need to be drawn from outside the current ranks -- someone like the late General William Odom.

: Call it torture, reject and condemn it; here's how (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 07:46:21 PM EST

I was heartened to read this anti-torture WaPo editorial (11/30), I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq. It's written by a former interrogation team leader, Matthew Alexander [pseudonym], who was assigned to a Special Operations task force in Iraq in 2006. He's the guy who extracted info on Zarqawi through detainee rapport-building, not torture.
Ergo, he is the author of "How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq."
This is what Mr. Alexander has to say going forward:
I'm actually quite optimistic these days, in no small measure because President-elect Barack Obama has promised to outlaw the practice of torture throughout our government. But until we renounce the sorts of abuses that have stained our national honor, al-Qaeda will be winning. Zarqawi is dead, but he has still forced us to show the world that we do not adhere to the principles we say we cherish.

Odd article (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by joanneleon on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 06:44:37 PM EST

and I'm not getting the same point that you are from the article. Maybe I'm missing your point.

From the one quote in the article by Lowenthal, the one you cited, I don't think he's implying that everyone in the CIA is guilty of participating in torture. I thought he was saying that it appears to the ranks in the CIA that they're all blacklisted now, even if it was only a "few bad apples" who were actually guilty. If he's libeling anyone, it's Obama, by implying that he is unfairly judging the entire organization.

I can't figure out if Lowenthal has a guilty conscience, has an agenda, or what else would make him give a statement like that.

The other part of the article which I found completely irresponsible was this:

Last week, John O. Brennan, a C.I.A. veteran who was widely seen as Mr. Obama's likeliest choice to head the intelligence agency, withdrew his name from consideration after liberal critics attacked his alleged role in the agency's detention and interrogation program. Mr. Brennan protested that he had been a "strong opponent" within the agency of harsh interrogation tactics, yet Mr. Obama evidently decided that nominating Mr. Brennan was not worth a battle with some of his most ardent supporters on the left.

Does anyone believe that the reason Obama nixed Brennan was entirely because of his liberal critics? Has he ever pandered to "his most ardent supporters on the left"?

How about this? Isn't it entirely possible that after looking at the record, Obama (and/or his advisors) decided that they weren't happy with the way Brennan handled the issue of torture during his tenure? Is it possible that some senators came to him and said that they could not, in good conscience, vote to confirm him? How about those retired generals and admirals who he is going to meet with soon? I seriously doubt this is primarily an issue of not wanting a battle with the "left" but that yet again the "left" is being used as a convenient excuse. Yet, I admit that even though it bugs me, I have to remember that being used as an excuse, or as a reason to migrate leftward on policy is not a bad thing, and it is part of the role of the blogosphere.

The other wording that I really didn't like was this:

Now Mr. Obama must take charge of the C.I.A., in what is already proving to be one of the more treacherous patches of his transition to the White House.

Is it just me, or does anyone else detect the hint of a threat in that statement?

There's more about the article that set off red flags for me, but I'll leave it at that. I wonder about the authors, Mark Mazzeti and Scott Shane, and if they have an agenda. Something about this article is just not right. Is there a whiff of the Mighty Wurlitzer in the air?

Well (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 06:50:43 PM EST

read it the way you want.

I see you did not quote his actual words.

I did.


Where does he say that? (none / 0) (#6)
by joanneleon on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 07:02:43 PM EST

Mark M. Lowenthal, an intelligence veteran who left a senior post at the C.I.A. in 2005, said Mr. Obama's decision to exclude Mr. Brennan from contention for the top job had sent a message that "if you worked in the C.I.A. during the war on terror, you are now tainted," and had created anxiety in the ranks of the agency's clandestine service.

Where does he say that everyone in the CIA was involved in torture? I think he's saying that they are afraid they will all be accused of being involved, even if they weren't.

Perhaps I'm interpreting it incorrectly. Wouldn't be the first time. I was trying to understand how you got that interpretation, not trying to insult you in any way.


: Right there (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 07:10:06 PM EST

Mr. Obama's decision to exclude Mr. Brennan from contention for the top job had sent a message that "if you worked in the C.I.A. during the war on terror, you are now tainted,"
Mr. Brennan was disqualified for approving and defending torture while "work[ing] in the CIA during the war on terror."
Implicitly, Mr. Lowenthal said that everyone did what Mr. Brennan did, approved of and defended torture.
Which part did you miss?

Glenn (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by lilburro on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 09:14:26 AM EST

writes critically of Feinstein and Wyden today here.

There was no talk whatsoever by either of them of the need for "flexibility" in "extreme cases" or using noncoercive measures only "to the greatest extent possible" or the need for "special measures" in times of heightened threat environments or "approv[ing] interrogation techniques that went beyond the Army Field Manual" or the need to have the interrogation laws be kept secret -- all the things which Feinstein and Wyden are suddenly telling The New York Times they are now considering. What changed?

What indeed.

Feinstein's full statement (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by lilburro on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 09:18:26 AM EST

here

"The law must reflect a single, clear standard across the government, and right now the best choice appears to be the Army Field Manual," Senator Feinstein said. "I recognize that there are other views, and I am willing to work with the new Administration to consider them. However, my intent is to pass a law that effectively bans torture, complies with all laws and treaties, and provides a single standard across the government."

Why does that sound like the "other views" [non-Army Field Manual] are coming from the administration? Why would these "other views" get that far along? Is this just for bipartisan show? If so, of all the issues to pick, this is about the worst one.


: I share your concern and then some... (none / 0) (#33)
by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 09:38:32 PM EST

I hadn't realized that the "full statement" was actually an additional statement that Feinstein issued, and sent to the NYTimes, at some point after they interviewed her on Tuesday.
Still, I see the Times included the first half of her additional statement in their original story:
"The law must reflect a single, clear standard across the government, and right now the best choice appears to be the Army Field Manual," Senator Feinstein said. "I recognize that there are other views, and I am willing to work with the new Administration to consider them".
Unfortunately, the Times neglected to include the more critical second half:
"My intent is to pass a law that effectively bans torture, complies with all laws and treaties, and provides a single standard across the government."

I wish Feinstein had included all of these detailed remarks in her initial interview with the NYTimes on Tuesday. You don't want to be 'confusing' the NYTimes, especially since they aren't overly inclined to get the story straight from the get-go.

What changed? Obama got elected... (none / 0) (#32)
by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 01:24:09 PM EST

And the new Democratic Administration doesn't want to deal with the criminality of torture under the Bush regime. FWIW, I wrote about it, at some length, on another thread.


Hear, hear. But why (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 06:08:07 PM EST

is this fellow willing to speak for attribution? I thought the CIA had rules against that?

Mark Lowenthal: (none / 0) (#8)
by oculus on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 07:40:49 PM EST

Please note, my internet provider recommended I not open this webpage due to security concerns!

Cut and paste (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 07:42:55 PM EST

You were first through the door . . .


It's just a PDF (none / 0) (#11)
by andgarden on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 07:56:58 PM EST

but the page has an iffy security cert. Doesn't really matter.


Sure hope you are correct. (none / 0) (#12)
by oculus on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 08:01:08 PM EST

His site is probably imbedded in my computer!


Watch out for unmarked planes (none / 0) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 08:06:45 PM EST

Rendition . . .


I do wonder how India plans to (none / 0) (#14)
by oculus on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 08:08:12 PM EST

bulk up its security vs. aircraft terrorist attacks.


Announcement: Oculus (none / 0) (#15)
by oculus on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 08:18:25 PM EST

is en route to the Met HD Encore broadcast of Damnation of Faust. Should she fail to check in here by midnight PST, please contact ACLU ASAP. Thank you.


hmm (none / 0) (#16)
by lilburro on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 08:50:36 PM EST

I'll be waiting.

Bring a toothbrush.


: She's baaaack. Thanks for (none / 0) (#18)
by oculus on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 12:40:09 AM EST

your vigilance.

Tainted, and if you have a conscience (none / 0) (#17)
by eric on Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 09:44:18 PM EST

you are also having trouble sleeping at night. What a tool.

Not new.... (none / 0) (#19)
by kdog on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 08:05:32 AM EST

The CIA has tortured people, heck murdered people, for over 50 years...if you sign up, you're tainted in my book.

It is most certainly not a new post-9/11 phenomenon...torture is and has been commonplace within every intelligence agency on earth.

Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 09:36:04 AM EST

It is foolish to think this is some new development for the CIA.

They've no doubt been doing things for years and years behind the curtain of "national security" that most Americans would rather not sully their consciences with, so they choose to ignore it instead or just consider it the "price of freedom".

Torture, assassinations...


It is a new development (none / 0) (#23)
by lilburro on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 09:42:59 AM EST

in a terrible tradition. The literature on the past 8 years suggests that the CIA had no idea what they were doing because they rarely if ever interrogated anyone (the FBI IIRC previously did most terrorist interrogation). They had little experience as jailers.

I know the CIA is just generally shady, but when confronted with this problem of global terror they took things way too far in a manner that is certainly new.


Domestically perhaps... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 09:53:09 AM EST

...but I don't think that their escapades across the globe since their inception could be considered a new development.

They've been running operations in South America, Europe, SE Asia, behind the Iron curtain for a looong time. Funding "truth squads" and the drug trade, sponsoring/carrying out torture and killings--these are not new things to the CIA.


I can't (none / 0) (#25)
by lilburro on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 09:56:45 AM EST

argue with that!


: by which I mean (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by lilburro on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 09:57:33 AM EST

you are right, not that those things are wonderful.

Actually... (none / 0) (#27)
by kdog on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 10:34:17 AM EST

I don't think the CIA took their shadyness and evil deeds any farther than they have in the past...the difference this time is it didn't take we the people 20 years to hear about it, we found out as the sh*t was going down.


that may be true (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by lilburro on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 10:44:53 AM EST

generally, but have they ever been so deeply involved in denying detainees due process? Their techniques make it nearly impossible for us to put some of these people on trial in our country. I think screwing with our justice system is a new area for them.


: I see what you're saying.... (none / 0) (#29)
by kdog on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 10:55:56 AM EST

but again, I think the CIA has always detained people without due process. Only this time we know about it. Though they may be more in the detainment business than before 9/11, that makes sense to me.
In the past, we weren't worried about trying people who are in CIA custody. or were once in CIA custody and transferred, for crimes. In the past, they just wound up dead or were sent to their home country when the CIA was done with them.

: Improved technology (none / 0) (#31)
by jondee on Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 12:48:58 PM EST

and the public's access to info are about the only unprecedented things that distinguish todays "company" from the good ole death squad, Savak training, Operation Phoenix days.