And apparently Chertoff was not being nearly as cooperative as they might have hoped and was holding out for criminal trials and refusing to sign off on “Clean Team” type concepts for re-interrogation of tortured/abused detainees being held withotu habeas.

The more people who were in the loop, the more resistance they got. But esp with a memo saying that war crimes were being committed as a document that might get in circulation.

Sign a pleading in his court with the info that he has on file (albeit sealed), saying there is no standing, and reap the consequences. But once you get to standing for anyone, then you start kicking the standing door further open for the next case.

Seems logical to me that it was Addington that caused the later NSC paragraph to be added at some later date than the EO in which Decider Bush directed that the CIA “shall” exercise the Program. Under the 1947 law which established the CIA, it operates at the direction of the NSC.

There was much discussion in DC at that time; some wanted the CIA to be under the President’s office and control; others feared that it would become the President’s own Gestapo (which under Bush it seems to have become). The wiser heads prevailed then resulting in the distinct placement of the CIA under the NSC with authority to put a program into effect only at the direction of the NSC.

There is another thing that bugs me: It appears to me that Pinetta uses the words ‘information’ and ‘intelligence’ indiscriminately. The CIA is supposed to collect information, analyze it (beat the Hell out of it like Marcy and you pups do) and from all the dredged up stuff, determine what is ‘intelligence’. Seems to me that Cheney Inc. treated every word that fell from the tortured detainee’s mouth as intelligence. Big mistake.

This info has been gleaned from several books I have. I’ll dig through and quote title and page if required.

[IMHO, this bunch at Emptywheel are much better ’spooks’ than those high dollar bumbling clowns in DC.]

Prosecute, and they have no propaganda.

They really really didn’t want to have to deal with Will Taft, whose memos on the GCs made them look like idiots and who didn’t seem to have any particular fear of taking on David Addington.

If it was “officials at” the NSC, I guess you might have the Secretary of Defense involved, which would make Rumsfeld’s ‘few bad apples’ reaction to his Abu Ghraib that much more *interesting* But isn’t it an interesting concept, that you could have ‘officials at’ the NSC decide that others within the NSC wouldn’t get access to torture information. Kinda defeats the purpose of there being a “council” doesn’t it? Especially if you didn’t want someone like Taft signing out memos that just flayed your torture authorizations.

I’m wondering how the timing on the decision to segregate coincided with the discoveries by CIA that many of those held at GITMO were innocent and their officer creating a written record/memo of that determination? (Anything that looks like that memo in the Vaugh Index?) If, after what he’d already put together, Taft (and Powell) got access to that information I’m pretty sure there would have been a big flare up.

Mayer talks about the fact that Bellinger, as top NSC counsel and top WH lawyer on security, was NEVER briefed in on the unconstituional surveillance program and makes it sound a lot like, while Cheney/Addington made the decisions, Gonzales as WH counsel migth have been the implementer.

From Mayer’s Dark Side, on the CIA memo

After completing his survey in Guantanamo, the CIA officer wrote up a detailed report describing his findings. He mentioned specific detainees by name, so there was no confusion about whom the United States was wrongly holding. He made clear that he believed that the United States was committing war crimes by holding and questioning innocent people in such inhumane ways

The reason that the DTA and later MCA were needed was of course that EVEN YOO didn’t really make any attempt to argue that the GC suspensions could apply to innocent people. In the “second” (combined) memo, Bradbury does try to go part of the way there re: the abusive treatment of innocent people being ok under 18 USC 2340, but he doesn’t even try to tackle the Article 147 GC issue (or GCs in general)

Glad you also mentioned the DoD “declassifed but never classified and no grounds for either the action or inaction” memo.

On the retroactive classifications, in addition to the cables I wonder about the “notes” that were being taken while watching the CIA videos. That sounds like it could be notes from IG inspectors who were watching the videos. Whether that is the case or not, those notes are not “operational” which is what Panetta keeps trying to claim for other info like the cables. More so, if they were prepared in connection with an internal investigation for wrongdoing/criminal activity – and esp if they were prepared in connection with an IG determination of criminal activity. It’s pretty darn difficult to argue that notes from investigators, investigating criminal acts, while watching (after the fact and in a non-operational aspect) the torture videos, are not being suppressed with an intent to cover up criminal behavior.

I think that Mayer’s sources specifically used the phrase “shock the conscience” when they told her what the effect of watching the memos would be. If notes mention that phrase, then Panetta covering it up is very very bad. It’s no wonder he put the weird language in his “declaration” (which should be of facts) that “judgments” in the declaration are his own. He’s agreeing to put his own head in the noose to insulate the torturers and the Obama exculpators heading the DOJ and sitting in the Oval Office.

And back to an issue that’s bugged me on the CIA briefings (and lack thereof) to Congress that overlaps here. Just like not briefing Congress required some findings on an covert program and some findings/statements specifically explaining why the Intel committees were not briefed, this concept of creating a special access program requires a finding. Has Congress ever been briefed on THAT finding?

I can’t think of any reason anyone would exclude Sec of State and Counsel, from programs involving having our foreign contacts enter into joint crime interrogation programs with us, unless someone didn’t want Taft to keep papering the file with objections.