Some Context on Hayden's Witchhunt of Helgerson

by emptywheel

As the NYT broke the other day, General Michael Hayden is conducting an investigation of the CIA's Inspector General, John Helgerson. Their first report on the story intimated the reason why Hayden was conducting such an unusual investigation.

A report by Mr. Helgerson’s office completed in the spring of 2004 warned that some C.I.A.-approved interrogation procedures appeared to constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, as defined by the international Convention Against Torture.

Some of the inspector general’s work on detention issues was conducted by Mary O. McCarthy, who was fired from the agency last year after being accused of leaking classified information. Officials said Mr. Helgerson’s office was nearing completion on a number of inquiries into C.I.A. detention, interrogation, and “renditions” — the practice of seizing suspects and delivering them to the authorities in other nations.

Last year's coverage of McCarthy's firing strongly suggest her firing was related to her opposition to the CIA's torture policies.

A senior CIA official, meeting with Senate staff in a secure room of the Capitol last June, promised repeatedly that the agency did not violate or seek to violate an international treaty that bars cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of detainees, during interrogations it conducted in the Middle East and elsewhere.

But another CIA officer -- the agency's deputy inspector general, who for the previous year had been probing allegations of criminal mistreatment by the CIA and its contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan -- was startled to hear what she considered an outright falsehood, according to people familiar with her account. It came during the discussion of legislation that would constrain the CIA's interrogations.

That CIA officer was Mary O. McCarthy, 61, who was fired on April 20 for allegedly sharing classified information with journalists, including Washington Post journalist Dana Priest. A CIA employee of two decades, McCarthy became convinced that "CIA people had lied" in that briefing, as one of her friends said later, not only because the agency had conducted abusive interrogations but also because its policies authorized treatment that she considered cruel, inhumane or degrading.

[snip]

In addition to CIA misrepresentations at the session last summer, McCarthy told the friends, a senior agency official failed to provide a full account of the CIA's detainee-treatment policy at a closed hearing of the House intelligence committee in February 2005, under questioning by Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the senior Democrat. [my emphasis]

I can't find anything that says who either of the CIA witnesses are--but I am curious if John Rizzo, acting General Counsel for some time, is one of them. Rizzo has been less than forthcoming about his own role in the CIA's torture policy, after all. Further, it's worth pointing out that the first (chronologically) of these deceitful briefings to Congress occured in February 2005, the same month that DOJ issued its secret torture memo; the second briefing in June 2005 almost certainly took place during the debate over John McCain's anti-torture bill. Two appearances before Congress, two torture memos.

But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.

Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.

Later that year, as Congress moved toward outlawing “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, the Justice Department issued another secret opinion, one most lawmakers did not know existed, current and former officials said. The Justice Department document declared that none of the C.I.A. interrogation methods violated that standard.

McCarthy wasn't just pissed about the practices the CIA was using--she was pissed about the policies that justified it, which may well include these two torture memos.

Now add in this bit from Ken Silverstein.

Here’s something else that I’ve just learned from several sources: it turns out that a former senior CIA legal official quit in protest over the administration’s use of “enhanced interrogations.” This official, whose name I have promised not to publish, previously worked as a deputy IG for investigations under Frederick Hitz, who served as CIA IG between 1990 and 1998. From there, the official moved on the CIA’s Office of General Counsel.

What’s interesting is that this official was generally known as something of a hardliner. I haven’t been able to pin down the date of his departure, which may have occurred a year ago or more. However, the sources tell me he couldn’t stomach what he deemed to be abuses by the Bush Administration and stepped down from his post.

So we've got Mary McCarthy fired just days before her retirement in April 2006. We've got Silverstein's unnamed person who resigned at about the same time as McCarthy's firing (if Silverstein's "a year ago or more" is accurate). (And note Silverstein's post from just days before McCarthy's firing noting a "revolt brewing" at CIA over interrogation methods.) Both McCarthy and Silverstein's person were viewing the CIA's torture policies at the juncture of the General Counsel's office and the Inspector General's Office.

And now Hayden (after supporting Rizzo's nomination to be General Counsel) is investigating the Inspector General.

Right now, both Democratic (sometime) appeasers like Silvestre Reyes and certified wingnuts like Kit Bond are pushing back against Hayden's investigation. But it strikes me that they ought to just plunk Mary McCarthy in a secure room to tell them everything she knows about the CIA's torture policies.

Comments

[Sally]

ew, I suspect that if Mary McCarthy spoke out while the thugs are still in control of everything, she would be severely punished, and the Democrats in Congress would not do anything about it except, as usual, blow a little hot air.

[radiofreewill]

I think Hayden is making a 'protect the family' move with Helgerson.

Almost everything reported on interrogations seems to reflect a 'systematized' process approach, vetted with authorizing Policy, including 'out-sourcing' some interrogation activities under some circumstances to other Countries.

In addition, one gets the feeling from the reporting that it's not uncommon for interrogators to 'call for authorization' for specific tactics used singly or in combination with specific individuals - and, it seems, some Interrogators may not have been able to do what they were told to do, in good conscience, and quit.

So, it would seem that the interrogation process inside the CIA is 'top driven' in almost every facet, according to Policy.

In the beginning, Bush and Cheney undoubtedly hid their 'enhanced interrogation programs' from everyone's sight, including the 'appropriate' members of the Intelligence Committees, but over time stories started coming out that made it clear 'something new' in American interrogation practices was going on.

As the facade of Noble Principle began to crack and leak out counter-vailing facts, the divergence between Public Policy and Secret Practice became increasingly, alarmingly like keeping quiet about a House of Horrors in a neighborhood full of children.

The line professionals at the CIA weren't gung-ho about doing this. It was never their intent to get to where they are today. For them, it's been six years of swirling in the dark of 'secret' Policies, not knowing where they're going, but sick to their stomachs about it all the same.

Along the way, Bush the Deciderer stripped them of the protections afforded by staying within the Geneva Conventions and CID Prohibitions, and subordinated their Moral Destiny to his Secret Policies for 'Enhanced Interrogation Techniques.' Bush went beyond being 'effective' - intelligence professionals can work with that - to being 'mean,' which just isn't a component of the vast majority of the rank and file in the Company.

And, as the article above states, BushCo was willing to send Policy-level officials to Congress to Lie about the Policies, in order to Continue the Practices of Bush.

I'm with Hayden for now - Re-establish the Rule of Law for Bush, first, before We go making the Rank and File Subordinates pay for his Policies, especially since Bush was willing to Lie Publicly to claim Noble Principle, while Making the Depraved Perogative of his Secret Policy 'the Law' for the Career Professionals at CIA.

They're in a difficult position.

[bmaz]

RFW - The problem with that thought is that you cannot trust the people that took us, and the line level CIA professionals you discuss, into the wilderness to be the ones to lead us out of the wilderness. I, for one, am not "with Hayden for now" or any other period of time. I do not for one second believe that Hayden has the interests of the CIA at heart, unless it by sheer happenstance, happens to align with the craven objectives and self interests of Bush/CheneyCo. and Hayden personally. None of these jokers should be accepted at face value on anything ever. They should be granted NOTHING until they have made full disclosure of what they have done and where we really stand on everything; and even then only if what they request makes legal, Constitutional, moral and practical sense. If this attitude puts my, and my family's, lives in danger, as well as other Americans, in the meantime; so be it, I am willing to accept that risk. It is an unfortunate position, but a necessary one. It is the cowardly, malicious, immoral and craven actions by Bush/CheneyCo that have put us in this position; but here we are nevertheless, and we must be willing to pay the price of putting the United States back on a proper Constitutional and moral plane. Others have paid this price in the past, it is our time now. We have to start doing things out of a motivation of propriety, not fear. Right now, I am much more afraid of our government than I am Islamoterrorists and I consider everything that the current Administration seeks to do as either grossly improper or trying to CYA for previous grossly improper. They should get nothing but a 6x6 cell for the rest of their miserable lives.

[Darclay]

Ew, is there a law that prohibits Mary McCarthy from testifing about this, or this another EX.Priv. crock of ...,seems like a slam dunk if you just subponea Silverstein and McCarthy.

[JohnLopresti]

There was a background article at U. Pitt. several months ago about some of the topic of this story. Also in the reference library was a dot discussion by eWheel which looked at background ostensibly very different from the context of the current tale, though, even in 2006, seemingly in several respects solidly relevant now.

[radiofreewill]

bmaz - I didn't think my position would be very popular. Another way to say it would be - if a Unit of Troops fail inspection of their Duties, then the proper focus is on the Commander's Orders.

Hayden might be a bad guy, I honestly haven't been able to tell. Even so, and this is endemic to our whole Federal Government at the moment, Hayden, Rice, Gates, McConnell, and other Department Heads, aren't empowered within BushCo to make Policy Decisions. Under Bush, just like the Rank and File, even Hayden has to call 'higher ups' for guidance and 'orders.'

While Hayden might have to March in Time to the UE's beat-down, he can at least protect the rank and file from being used to burn Bush in effigy - which would be a mis-direction of anger and frustration.

I'm not suggesting giving anyone a pass, and there are plenty of 6x6 cells that are waiting for BushCo's Leaders who failed to act humanely within the Law. At the moment, however, I'm advocating all sides to unify in opposition to BushCo's wanton disregard for the Rule of Law. Once the Law is again supreme in our Land, then our Courts and Legal processes, the CIAs own IG and internal ethics processes, are perfectly capable of calling balls and strikes for everyone.

[Darclay]

At the moment, however, I'm advocating all sides to unify in opposition to BushCo's wanton disregard for the Rule of Law.

Just what the Dr ordered. Bush Co has done more to destroy our country than all the commie threat during the cold war.

[Darclay]

John Dean has a chapter on how the country is devided and how it is destroying the rule of law.

[bmaz]

Hey, I am all for "advocating all sides to unify in opposition to BushCo's wanton disregard for the Rule of Law" as well. But I am not in favor of siding up with people actively working contrary to that; which is exactly what Mike Hayden has, AND IS, doing. Jeebus, just reread this very post to see the point. You want someone trying to honor the rule of law and morality, it is Helgerson, not Hayden. Hayden gets nothing but disdain from me for his current and past sins. What in the world has he done to earn one single ounce of respect since the start of the Bush Administration?

[Darclay]

I was off topic sort of out in lala land . I agree with you there are those that need to go away far,far ,far away, mad or not just leave .

[lll]

there could well be another issue that has arisen. granted, the story as it stands is believable as enough to force hayden into desperate defense mode.

however, we all know as well that the cia has a long history of drug running. and we know that afghanistan, after several years of nearly eliminating the poppy trade, is now - courtesy of our presence - blowing the top off all previous records of poppy production.

and then there are the two recent mysterious coke flights in mexico, one accosted a year ago (the pilot oddly escaped despite being surrounded by police), the other crashed after all aboard apparently bailed out.

both planes have the murkiest of ownership histories, with apparent links to cia front companies.

of course, if helgerson is not looking at these issues, then perhaps he should be investigated.

snark.

[bmaz]

And let us not forget all the "Bananas" that our government and their closest Chiquita friends were running if we are going to bring up drug running.

[orionATL]

bmaz,

you have a nice way of stating the truth simply, no flourish, no bombastic rhetoric.

i like that.

as an aside:

whenever i read here the tale of "chiquita banana and the ambuscados" (soon to be a movie)

i cannot get out of my mind a tale i read about some years ago.

an american banana company was caught by a journalist, i think in indiana but it's been a long time, sending some very embarrassing e-mails.

the journalist wrote and his paper printed the e-mails and the story.

then all hell broke loose.

the journalist was fired for possessing stolen "documents".

the newspaper apologized to the banana company for printing the e-mails.

the source for the e-mails, a latin lawyer for the banana company living in his country, was hung out to dry and fired.

it's been so long ago, i doubt i am recalling the details with great precision,

but i have never forgotten my sense of extraordinary injustice having been done.

the entire, fundamental, injustice

involving the american company

was washed away and lost

as the legal battle devolved into charges of small misconducts on the part of the parties who brought the story to light.

the journalist should have ben supported by his paper.

the south american lawyer should have been protected by his source.

and the newspaper should have told the banana company to go take a flying slip.

things did not happen that way.

so

when i hear about protecting the press and their sources,

i think of this example.

what to make of it?

well, for one it's been forgotten by the media.

for two, sources and reporters are protected, so long as doing so is convenient for the media corporation.

others,

not so much.

[dqueue]

bmaz,
I feel it's worthwhile to mention a Gulfstream II jet that recently crashed near Cancun, Mexico; it was laden with 3.7 tons of cocaine. Oh yeah, the Gulfstream II had been identified as having a history of rendition-related flights. Joseph Cannon has some interesting speculation regarding rendition flights and smuggling flights.

[bmaz]

Excellent article by Larry Johnson on the Hayden/Helgerson cage match.

dqueue - That is right; and as another commenter, lll, noted above, there may have been more than one of these suspicious airplane incidents. And it would certainly stand to reason that the same "Air America" outfits would be doing both illegal activities if they are indeed being done. The bananas are just icing on the cake; you just know something is up with all this, not to mention it is right out of the Fourth Branch playbook from the 80s.

orionATL - Thank you, but I am afraid I do get a little bombastic sometimes. There is such a constant parade of this crap out of our government that it is hard not to go off every now and then. In fact, I was kind of thinking I might have come off a bit rough on radiofreewill, and I really did not mean to. So, RFW, if I did come off that way, my apologies; I respect your, and everybody's, opinions greatly.

[radiofreewill]

bmaz - No problem! I know I'm surfing in an early set of a new tide by siding with protecting the rank and file from their leadership, at least until Bush and Cheney are removed from office.

I see the staffs as just as sick of Bush as we are, but being directly oppressed by his policies - so, I'm willing to buddy-up with them for now, and on this as good Leadership practice, even if he is a BushCo True Believer, I expect Hayden to do the honorable thing here and protect his staff.

I'm thinking we, the Left, should offer to 'safe-haven' (judgment-free) the BushCo masses for now and collaborate to restore integrity to Our Rule of Law based system of government. Then, after the nightmare is over, we can let the various Departments disipline their own, and make criminal referrals where neccessary.

As for Hayden, I haven't been able to make a definite read on the guy. I'll read Larry's article tomorrow and see if it helps make things clearer.

I've learned a lot of legal and good-living wisdom following your comments! It's great to be a member of this community!