Comments on: The Scope of the SSCI Investigation and Where It Leads http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/12/the-scope-of-the-ssci-investigation-and-where-it-leads/ Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:51:59 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: dude http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/12/the-scope-of-the-ssci-investigation-and-where-it-leads/comment-page-1/#comment-165497 dude Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:48:21 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/12/the-scope-of-the-ssci-investigation-and-where-it-leads/#comment-165497 <p>This is a crude analogy, but “contractor” and “consultant” are not too far apart in meaning. Perhaps in law (IANAL) there is no difference, but in my profession a distinction is drawn, and if I had to say, my guess is the guys who asked for permission to push on into torture were “contractors” who then turned to their “consultants” who then turned to their clients (the agency bureaucrats tasked with managing the day-to-day) who then turned to their politically appointed leaders to get the go-code. When Whitehouse talks about the peculiar motivations of the private contractors, he had better best a wider net to get his answers. “Contractors” are selected. The configuration of the “Contractor’s Deliverables” to government could be a One-Stop Shop situation (such as, “We provide you specialty workers and we have our own in-house consultants”). Or they could be merely hired arm-twisters/leg-breakers (”I’ll do anything you say for money, but you have to tell me exactly what you want.”) Or they could be ’boutique’ (”We provide a complete soup-to-nuts menu of services for you to mix and match”). What I would fear, however, would be the simple hiring of “temps” to fill in the gaps of a labor shortage. That only happens when the management down to the lowest level has pretty much worked out its standard-operating procedures and all the managers are on the same page. The entire “chain” of torture would be in tune and well-oiled. What would it say about us?</p> This is a crude analogy, but “contractor” and “consultant” are not too far apart in meaning. Perhaps in law (IANAL) there is no difference, but in my profession a distinction is drawn, and if I had to say, my guess is the guys who asked for permission to push on into torture were “contractors” who then turned to their “consultants” who then turned to their clients (the agency bureaucrats tasked with managing the day-to-day) who then turned to their politically appointed leaders to get the go-code. When Whitehouse talks about the peculiar motivations of the private contractors, he had better best a wider net to get his answers. “Contractors” are selected. The configuration of the “Contractor’s Deliverables” to government could be a One-Stop Shop situation (such as, “We provide you specialty workers and we have our own in-house consultants”). Or they could be merely hired arm-twisters/leg-breakers (”I’ll do anything you say for money, but you have to tell me exactly what you want.”) Or they could be ’boutique’ (”We provide a complete soup-to-nuts menu of services for you to mix and match”). What I would fear, however, would be the simple hiring of “temps” to fill in the gaps of a labor shortage. That only happens when the management down to the lowest level has pretty much worked out its standard-operating procedures and all the managers are on the same page. The entire “chain” of torture would be in tune and well-oiled. What would it say about us?

]]> By: dude http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/12/the-scope-of-the-ssci-investigation-and-where-it-leads/comment-page-1/#comment-165495 dude Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:30:05 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/12/the-scope-of-the-ssci-investigation-and-where-it-leads/#comment-165495 <p>I also am not a lawyer, nor a very deep thinker. But as I read the comments and listen to Whitehouse, I hear something entirely different. Whitehouse is practically beseeching Obama to intervene and seems not to know if there are any mitigating Bush-era investigations of itself which could muddy the waters of the Senate investigation. I get the impression he is suggesting Obama make his own investigation to cut through the crap. </p> <p>Seems to me that last bit (how the current executive might over-ride the previous in exposing information) is destined to take years to thrash out in courts. So in the meantime, Whitehouse is left with a limitation for the ongoing investigation and he sounded like it could be a serious one if ”the chain of command” is ruled out of bounds. And if it is so ruled, it sounds like more of a political limitation, not a legal one.</p> <p>And I am not at all convinced Obama would initiate an investigation for the purpose of revealing anything. I think Holder’s behavior at Obama’s behest suggests they would much prefer to follow Bush’s lead, not expose anything at all. They like having ”Pixie Dust” in the toolbox. What makes anyone think that Obama –in even the best of circumstances– would use his power to get rid of it?</p> I also am not a lawyer, nor a very deep thinker. But as I read the comments and listen to Whitehouse, I hear something entirely different. Whitehouse is practically beseeching Obama to intervene and seems not to know if there are any mitigating Bush-era investigations of itself which could muddy the waters of the Senate investigation. I get the impression he is suggesting Obama make his own investigation to cut through the crap.

Seems to me that last bit (how the current executive might over-ride the previous in exposing information) is destined to take years to thrash out in courts. So in the meantime, Whitehouse is left with a limitation for the ongoing investigation and he sounded like it could be a serious one if ”the chain of command” is ruled out of bounds. And if it is so ruled, it sounds like more of a political limitation, not a legal one.

And I am not at all convinced Obama would initiate an investigation for the purpose of revealing anything. I think Holder’s behavior at Obama’s behest suggests they would much prefer to follow Bush’s lead, not expose anything at all. They like having ”Pixie Dust” in the toolbox. What makes anyone think that Obama –in even the best of circumstances– would use his power to get rid of it?

]]> By: robspierre http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/12/the-scope-of-the-ssci-investigation-and-where-it-leads/comment-page-1/#comment-165456 robspierre Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:09:31 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/12/the-scope-of-the-ssci-investigation-and-where-it-leads/#comment-165456 <p>As a fellow Catholic, I was thinking something more on the lines of the Holy Inquisition:</p> <p>“Show Brother Cheyney the instruments of Truth and Penitence.”</p> As a fellow Catholic, I was thinking something more on the lines of the Holy Inquisition:

“Show Brother Cheyney the instruments of Truth and Penitence.”

]]> By: robspierre http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/12/the-scope-of-the-ssci-investigation-and-where-it-leads/comment-page-1/#comment-165455 robspierre Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:06:46 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/12/the-scope-of-the-ssci-investigation-and-where-it-leads/#comment-165455 <p>Not exactly. Some Waffen SS units were mercenaries late in the war. But the “real” SS were actually an arm of the Nazi Party with control of the police and internal security apparatus. So not so much contractors–more like professional Republican Party operatives.</p> <p>The contractor issue is intersting, though, because it obscures what is meant by “CIA” involvement. </p> <p>It has always been my understanding that most CIA field operatives are technically independent contractors. </p> <p>During the Shrub years, Defense and State had their own contractors. And the same contracting companies–CACI and Titan–supplied translators, trainers, consultants, drivers, pilots, and mercenaries/bodyguards to all of them. </p> <p>So what does it mean when and if we find that personnel from the same contractor or couple of contractors turn up in all of the scandals and crimes? </p> <p>This is what made my eyes bulge a bit over that remark about the contractors making calls and getting what they want. No doubt the outsourcing of this kind of nastiness was intended to provide cutouts and deniability. But given this call (and perhaps others like it), perhaps the contractors end up being the common thread that proves an executive-branch conspiracy.</p> Not exactly. Some Waffen SS units were mercenaries late in the war. But the “real” SS were actually an arm of the Nazi Party with control of the police and internal security apparatus. So not so much contractors–more like professional Republican Party operatives.

The contractor issue is intersting, though, because it obscures what is meant by “CIA” involvement.

It has always been my understanding that most CIA field operatives are technically independent contractors.

During the Shrub years, Defense and State had their own contractors. And the same contracting companies–CACI and Titan–supplied translators, trainers, consultants, drivers, pilots, and mercenaries/bodyguards to all of them.

So what does it mean when and if we find that personnel from the same contractor or couple of contractors turn up in all of the scandals and crimes?

This is what made my eyes bulge a bit over that remark about the contractors making calls and getting what they want. No doubt the outsourcing of this kind of nastiness was intended to provide cutouts and deniability. But given this call (and perhaps others like it), perhaps the contractors end up being the common thread that proves an executive-branch conspiracy.

]]> By: dopeyo http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/12/the-scope-of-the-ssci-investigation-and-where-it-leads/comment-page-1/#comment-165447 dopeyo Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:43:32 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/12/the-scope-of-the-ssci-investigation-and-where-it-leads/#comment-165447 <p>“…could they sprinkle a little water on him?”</p> <p>being a catholic, at first i thought you were talking about the rite of exorcism. nevermind.</p> “…could they sprinkle a little water on him?”

being a catholic, at first i thought you were talking about the rite of exorcism. nevermind.

]]> By: Leen http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/12/the-scope-of-the-ssci-investigation-and-where-it-leads/comment-page-1/#comment-165446 Leen Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:38:49 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/12/the-scope-of-the-ssci-investigation-and-where-it-leads/#comment-165446 <p>Rachel is generally great..but Whitehouse sure threw her a bone at the end by bringing up the “contractors” What a gift</p> Rachel is generally great..but Whitehouse sure threw her a bone at the end by bringing up the “contractors” What a gift

]]> By: Leen http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/12/the-scope-of-the-ssci-investigation-and-where-it-leads/comment-page-1/#comment-165443 Leen Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:28:38 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/12/the-scope-of-the-ssci-investigation-and-where-it-leads/#comment-165443 <p>Just too sad too horrific. Too many lives lost too many tears shed based on a “pack of lies” Mary where do I access these reports? </p> <p>Could be that I am also crying listening and watching Amy Goodman report about another young American soldier (24) who recently hung himself in California after returning from Iraq. So many lives gone based on the lies and an unnecessary war. Amy Goodman’s eyes say so much. </p> <p> Not like those folks who report about deaths in between segments at MSNBC and smile just after they tell a horrific story</p> Just too sad too horrific. Too many lives lost too many tears shed based on a “pack of lies” Mary where do I access these reports?

Could be that I am also crying listening and watching Amy Goodman report about another young American soldier (24) who recently hung himself in California after returning from Iraq. So many lives gone based on the lies and an unnecessary war. Amy Goodman’s eyes say so much.

Not like those folks who report about deaths in between segments at MSNBC and smile just after they tell a horrific story

]]> By: Mauimom http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/12/the-scope-of-the-ssci-investigation-and-where-it-leads/comment-page-1/#comment-165417 Mauimom Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:52:52 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/12/the-scope-of-the-ssci-investigation-and-where-it-leads/#comment-165417 <p>It’s so incredible to have a wonderful interviewer like Rachel.</p> <p>Contrast with the work by Ezra Klein on Kent Conrad and the health care alternatives: not knowing or caring enough to ask follow-up questions or go into other than “pre-recorded” areas.</p> <p>Rachel really knows her stuff, she works hard/studies up for interviews, and she’s got a burning curiosity.</p> <p>Kinda like some other wonderful women around here.</p> It’s so incredible to have a wonderful interviewer like Rachel.

Contrast with the work by Ezra Klein on Kent Conrad and the health care alternatives: not knowing or caring enough to ask follow-up questions or go into other than “pre-recorded” areas.

Rachel really knows her stuff, she works hard/studies up for interviews, and she’s got a burning curiosity.

Kinda like some other wonderful women around here.

]]> By: Mary http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/12/the-scope-of-the-ssci-investigation-and-where-it-leads/comment-page-1/#comment-165416 Mary Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:45:17 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/12/the-scope-of-the-ssci-investigation-and-where-it-leads/#comment-165416 <blockquote><p>But if Obama did, in fact, order up such a chain of command investigation, you’d see chaos where you’d like to see a nice legally defensible prosecution.</p></blockquote> <p>I guess I should have added that on most things, I’m pretty sure its a fiction that there will ever be prosecutions on the actual torture issues. On destruction of evidence, maybe, bc otherwise they will have courts start blowing up on them but that will still not walk back to Bush. I take Obama and Holder at their word that there’s not much way in hell they are going after CIA torturers and it’s going to already be impossible to have a “nice legally defensible prosecution” after Holder’s public statements. Ask any defense lawyer, but after coming out and saying these guys will not be prosecuted, if that changes it will open every door to claims of politicized prosecution that would never have flown but-for Holder’s pre-emptive abuse of his office in his non-prosectuion statements. </p> <p>Civil suits are about the only real avenue IMO if you really want to walk upchain on responsiblity, and those will be dependent on what info comes from the Exec - so that also makes me think they are a good idea.</p> <p>I want prosecutions, I’m going to hope for them on the murder fronts in particular. But after Holder has publically said these guys are not responsible and won’t even be investigated, much less prosecuted, bc of the 2005 memos, then he fouled the pool bigtime. However much we pick around the deviations from the memos (and I have and will keep doing that) Holder created out of whole cloth all kinds of grounds for tossing prosecutions by what he and Panetta and Obama have done to date.</p>

But if Obama did, in fact, order up such a chain of command investigation, you’d see chaos where you’d like to see a nice legally defensible prosecution.

I guess I should have added that on most things, I’m pretty sure its a fiction that there will ever be prosecutions on the actual torture issues. On destruction of evidence, maybe, bc otherwise they will have courts start blowing up on them but that will still not walk back to Bush. I take Obama and Holder at their word that there’s not much way in hell they are going after CIA torturers and it’s going to already be impossible to have a “nice legally defensible prosecution” after Holder’s public statements. Ask any defense lawyer, but after coming out and saying these guys will not be prosecuted, if that changes it will open every door to claims of politicized prosecution that would never have flown but-for Holder’s pre-emptive abuse of his office in his non-prosectuion statements.

Civil suits are about the only real avenue IMO if you really want to walk upchain on responsiblity, and those will be dependent on what info comes from the Exec – so that also makes me think they are a good idea.

I want prosecutions, I’m going to hope for them on the murder fronts in particular. But after Holder has publically said these guys are not responsible and won’t even be investigated, much less prosecuted, bc of the 2005 memos, then he fouled the pool bigtime. However much we pick around the deviations from the memos (and I have and will keep doing that) Holder created out of whole cloth all kinds of grounds for tossing prosecutions by what he and Panetta and Obama have done to date.

]]> By: Mary http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/12/the-scope-of-the-ssci-investigation-and-where-it-leads/comment-page-1/#comment-165414 Mary Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:35:41 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/12/the-scope-of-the-ssci-investigation-and-where-it-leads/#comment-165414 <blockquote><p>And any investigatoin that does look at chain of command–contrary to your assertion–is not only politically impossible, but politically stupid, because it would be regarded as illegitimate. As it is the torture apologists have at every stage of the game tried to suggest this was Obama rather than other executive agents opening the door on torture. But if Obama did, in fact, order up such a chain of command investigation, you’d see chaos where you’d like to see a nice legally defensible prosecution</p></blockquote> <p>Well I disagree on that. I think, for example, he could try to have Taguba (who I understand is retired now, but this is a for instance and he could get him back in the fold to do something like this or use Iglesias or someone else with the right creds) conduct an up- and down-chain investigation into MI and abuse and policies in a heartbeat and it would not only be considered legitimate, and not politically impossible, but it would be a very politically smart way of, for example defusing the pictures issue. It’s not that anyone is crazy to see pictures of the horrible, its that nothing seems to push any invesitgation forward without picks. A Taguba MI investigation summarizing crimes, abuses, chain of command authorizations to MI, whether crimes reflected in pictures have been prosecuted and to waht extent, involvement of contractors being used in the MI setting, etc. would probably be accepted by ACLU and others as a trade off and would push Graham/Lieberman into saying it’s not that they want to protect troops bynot releasing the pics, it’s that they want to protect war crimes and criminals by blocking an investigation.</p> <p>He could even use the issue of the SOFA in Iraq and Iraqi need to see a commitment from the US to following its own law as their trade off for agreeing to let us remain under a SOFA that denudes them of their ability to protect themselves with their own law, as a grounds. </p> <p>And I guess in the end, too, politically you and I see things differently bc I haven’t ever been politically motivated and partisan on most of these issues and I don’t think it would be the end of the world if Obama did the right thing and that ended up being so “politically” disavantageous that he didn’t get a second term. I don’t think that would happen if he’s exposing prior abuse anyway, but even if it were, I guess my def of impossible is different. I see it as not only possible but easily possible for him to have invetigations (CIA and NSA etc. as well as military) and generate a useful and positive result, as he did with the release of the reliance memos. fwiw.</p>

And any investigatoin that does look at chain of command–contrary to your assertion–is not only politically impossible, but politically stupid, because it would be regarded as illegitimate. As it is the torture apologists have at every stage of the game tried to suggest this was Obama rather than other executive agents opening the door on torture. But if Obama did, in fact, order up such a chain of command investigation, you’d see chaos where you’d like to see a nice legally defensible prosecution

Well I disagree on that. I think, for example, he could try to have Taguba (who I understand is retired now, but this is a for instance and he could get him back in the fold to do something like this or use Iglesias or someone else with the right creds) conduct an up- and down-chain investigation into MI and abuse and policies in a heartbeat and it would not only be considered legitimate, and not politically impossible, but it would be a very politically smart way of, for example defusing the pictures issue. It’s not that anyone is crazy to see pictures of the horrible, its that nothing seems to push any invesitgation forward without picks. A Taguba MI investigation summarizing crimes, abuses, chain of command authorizations to MI, whether crimes reflected in pictures have been prosecuted and to waht extent, involvement of contractors being used in the MI setting, etc. would probably be accepted by ACLU and others as a trade off and would push Graham/Lieberman into saying it’s not that they want to protect troops bynot releasing the pics, it’s that they want to protect war crimes and criminals by blocking an investigation.

He could even use the issue of the SOFA in Iraq and Iraqi need to see a commitment from the US to following its own law as their trade off for agreeing to let us remain under a SOFA that denudes them of their ability to protect themselves with their own law, as a grounds.

And I guess in the end, too, politically you and I see things differently bc I haven’t ever been politically motivated and partisan on most of these issues and I don’t think it would be the end of the world if Obama did the right thing and that ended up being so “politically” disavantageous that he didn’t get a second term. I don’t think that would happen if he’s exposing prior abuse anyway, but even if it were, I guess my def of impossible is different. I see it as not only possible but easily possible for him to have invetigations (CIA and NSA etc. as well as military) and generate a useful and positive result, as he did with the release of the reliance memos. fwiw.

]]>