One quick note on the revelation of secret CIA facilities in Europe that were first reported by ABC News. I'm as mad as anybody else that the locations and names of the senior al-Qaeda leaders being housed there were leaked to the press, but most of this has been said already. The reason they were leaked was to the press was to influence the current domestic debate over interrogation techniques (or from a more cynical perspective, to stir up further trouble between the Bush administration and Europe). As someone who probably agrees with many of the points that these CIA officials would argue with respect to interrogation, let me just make the following three points.
The first is that you can separate the current interrogation controversy from the issue of revealing CIA locations and I think that this is a key thing to understand in that one is entirely reasonable and should occur while the other has in all likelihood weakened US national security, at least if you consider the continued detention of the individuals named in the original ABC News reporting to be in the national interest of the United States. Assuming these Eastern European sites hadn't been evacuated, they could have been subject to possible attack at some future date by al-Qaeda members seeking the release of their leaders. As it is, I am far more concerned about the leaking of the current housing of these al-Qaeda operatives in North Africa rather than any past facilities in Europe, since it isn't that terribly hard to imagine the GICM or GSPC mounting some kind of operation to liberate their bretheren, especially given that the GSPC has fought and won against both Algerian and Mauritanian troops in the past. While I realize that it may sound improbable (and it does even to me) to argue that such an event could have occurred, I would have thought just the same until Omar Farouk escaped from US custody this past summer. The bottom line would be that I certainly don't want someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed out on the loose again, nor do I want him dead until the US has picked his brain for every valuable nugget of information that will assist us in neutralization of his colleagues.
The second issue that I think everybody needs to understand (and this is what I meant when I said that the interrogation controversy needs to be divorced from the issue of revealing CIA locations) is that unless you believe that members of the al-Qaeda leadership need to be accorded the rights of either an enemy soldier of a standing army or a criminal (which as I understand it is the position of NGOs like Human Rights Watch), we are going to need these types of interrogation facilities for the immediate future, including if the McCain Amendment is codified into US law with respect to the CIA. That is one of the reasons why I find the decision to leak this information so reprehensible to begin with.
Finally since, political tribalism being what it is, someone is going to bring up the issue of how this relates to the outing of Valerie Plame, let me just say that I've been largely silent on the Plame Affair except noting on my own blog that I think whoever outed her should go to jail if they broke the law in doing so. I'm not familiar enough with the law here to know the specific statutes, if it were violated (though as Scheuer notes at the end of Imperial Hubris, almost all of these leaks are against the law to begin with), but that doesn't make the decision to do so any less stupid or reprehensible.
I think the most prominent point is that the leaks from the CIA are illegal. And this, frankly, is not just about the Bush administration, my concern is that from this day forward, an agency of the United States whose responsibility is to obtain and evaluate information, assess threats and provide valuable, reliable information to appropriate powers responsible for making the actual decisions about proper posture and actions for the security of the United States, whoever is president, the agency must be considered a) hostile and b) may need to be destroyed.
On the otherhand, how does a president disband or destroy an agency that controls information that may very well destroy the United States if it were released or if disinformatin, far more harmful than the current information being released, was put out as true?
I think the true danger in this situation is the possibility of the entire agency becoming one giant hostile force that is willing to destroy whomever and whatever in order to prove that it knows best.
Also, retreating from the doom scenario, the simple fact that an unelected bunch of hooscows think that they know what is best for US policy instead of maintaining their roles as gatherers, analyzers and advisers, is just as scary and currently the most likely problem in the agency.
Finally, since it cannot be that the entire agency is part of this problem, it means that the agency is at war with itself which begs the question of how effective is this agency?
This has gone far beyond the question of its interaction with this administration and right over into the constructs of the American system of government and checks and balances. Who are these nutballs that think that they are the keepers and conveyers of American power and morality above and beyond the people or their elected government?
I'm sorry, but a CIA agent working as a CIA agent does not have the right to do this. If they want to say something, they should put on their civilian clothes and prepare to be occupational martyrs for their beliefs. If they do not then, what is happening is more than some one blowing the whistle, but actually redefining the balance of power, much like the power that J. Edgar Hoover used at the FBI.
I wonder how many people imagined that this would exist again?
A common theme in political thrillers for decades has been the rogue CIA operation aimed at seizing power in the US. In those fictional scenarios, the rogues, who violate their own organizational ethics, as well as US laws, are always the bad guys, even though their motives may have had some sympathetic element.
Translating into real life, the mainstream attitude toward the CIA has always been one of respectful distrust, understanding their necessity and tolerating their existence, so long as their activities were abroad and their activities not too egregiously horrific - or at least, not publicly so. But the notion of the CIA pursuing a domestic agenda has always been illegal and unacceptable, for the general public, politicians, journalists alike. The more liberal the views, the stronger the distrust of the CIA has always seemed to be.
The question then becomes: Now that we have what seems to be widespread leaking of classified CIA information for the purpose of affecting and altering public opinion, government policy and, ultimately, the political balance in this country, why is there no outrage among those who have so strongly and for so long distrusted the CIA? Why is the idealistic opposition to CIA involvement in domestic matters suddenly not as important as the realpolitik need to shift power and influence decisions? Is liberal idealism dead? Or merely corrupted by the will to power?
Dan wrote:
Too few members of America's cultural and policy elites read tragedies, and understand them as such. Too many read or watch comedies, and confuse their narratives with events in the wider world. I imagine that the experiences of law school reinforce the process-based, orderly, idealistic outlook of many of these people. This sort of great-power hubris isn't restricted to Left or Right.
What if there were tough choices to be made, between competing goods? What if single-minded pursuit of one set of rights would be certain to expose society to dangers from other directions? What if our enemies' morality demanded that they take advantage of every proffered concession and quid pro quo, offering nothing in return--because their quest is to destroy us, by any means necessary?
These thoughts are far removed from the outlook of these leaky CIA officials, reporters, and politicians. There seem to be ever-greater numbers of conversations that our elites can't participate in. They've lost the ability to imagine the existence of valid perspectives that differ from their own.
We are in a war, and somebody is outing our CIA safe houses.
This isn't just fingering a spy (which is bad enough). This really is treason.
I thought the Plame thing should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and I feel the same way about this. Come on, people of both parties, let's demand somebody be held accountable here! Certainly at the very least we need another multimillion-dollar prosecutor.
Frankly, I'm no fan of Bush's implementation policies (and I'm no liberal), but leaking top secret files, which can adversely impact the future security and diplomatic relations of the country, to the media is treason in my book.
I'm no fan of the Voting Rights Act because of its disturbance of federal-state issues, but it became necessary when the Southern states didn't get the message about Appammatox.
I'm no fan of leaking information about the CIA, but I'm thinking it became necessary because the Bush Administration didn't get the message about the Geneva Conventions and the International Convention Against Torture. The Europeans aren't upset because we are using their facilities, but because we are using them for something the suspect, with very good reason, is abhorrent.
the Bush Administration didn't get the message about the Geneva Conventions and the International Convention Against Torture.
Then why is the 9/11 Commission critizing the Bush administration this work for for not "work[ing] with its allies to develop mutually acceptable standards for terrorist detention"? (BBC NEWS )
Answer: There currently are no international conventions.
"...I'm no fan of leaking information about the CIA, but I'm thinking it became necessary..."
Wow.
Well if it's okay to subvert your country if you think it is necessary for a larger, better cause, then there you go. No point in having a CIA, since there are 300 million of us. I'm sure for each secret there's bound to be at least one person who thinks it is necessary to publish it for the greater good.
FYI -- It's spelled Appomattox. Nice spot. Live near there. I believe that is where the War of Northern Aggression ended with a successful surrender to General Grant. (wink)
PD Shaw: There are no standards about what sort of tribunal, etc. to use for terrorists. The ICAT is the law in the United States and every other country I know about (in other words, in the European countries whose prisons we are borrowing). Are you contending that torture of detainees is lawful?
AJL:
Sorry, that explanation doesn't wash for me. You can leak the types of interrogation techniques that the CIA is using or even the fact that they're using them in Europe without getting into the issue of where these where senior al-Qaeda leaders were and are currently located. That they chose to do so anyway showed an incredible amount of short-sightedness at best and criminal negligence at worst. One of the practical reasons I want the McCain Amendment affirmed is that I want to be rid of this whole mess - too many people are letting their sense of moral outrage override their better judgement.
If the leakers REALLY feel that it was morally imperetive to get this information out, then they should do it with their names attached. There whould be no anonymous sources. This just makes it look more and more like political gotcha games.
The worse ting is that, ff they really do work for the CIA, then they are doing more to undermine its credibility and effectiveness to work with the agencies of other nations than anyone in history.
Any potential informant or ally, would certainly be wary of working with the CIA. That place is leaking like a sieve. That's a situation that truly does undermine national security.
The ICAT is the law in the United States and every other country I know about (in other words, in the European countries whose prisons we are borrowing). Are you contending that torture of detainees is lawful?
The U.S. signed ICAT with the following reservations , including, in particular, the reservation that torture means "cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States." Since these Constitutional protections do not apply to foreign combatants, ICAT does not prevent their torture.
Anybody serious about these issues should recognize that there is a hole in the coverage, created not by some insideous design, but from the simple fact that when the Geneva Conventions were ratified, a conventional war was contemplated, and when the anti-torture conventions were passed the worst offenders were authoritarian governments against their own people. The 9/11 Committee wants the hole filled, and by claiming that Bush is violating existing legal obligations, they will never get public support.
PD Shaw: the Congressional reservation was intended (you can check the history) to make clear that the Death Penalty was not considered torture, as is repeated in point II of the reservations where the link is made clear. I think the pertinent point here is Article 5(b), which prohibits torture by a national of the State committed in any jurisdiction. AFAIK, the implementing legislation in the United States covers this.
It is possible that if the CIA hires only foreign torturers, then those torturers would only be subject to proceeding in their own countries or in the country where the torture took place, but I would assume the authorizing officials would be liable as conspirators and accomplices.
"I'm no fan of leaking information about the CIA, but I'm thinking it became necessary because the Bush Administration didn't get the message about the Geneva Conventions and the International Convention Against Torture."
Okay, not to play "he did it first", but part of the missing narrative here is that it was Clinton, a Democrat president, who signed extraordinary rendition into law and used it, extensively, during his presidency.
so, what bothers me more is that this moral grand standing by people such as ajl was missing for 7 years after the law was signed, but now its okay for the CIA to leak it because it's Bush and BUSH didn't get the message? Um...did Clinton get the message? Or, was the difference war? It's okay to do extraordinary renditions and detain terrorists and ship them off to places where they may or may not get tortured, but not a Republican?
That is the worst sort of hypocrasy. And, while I do not support torture (I mean the real, nasty, breaking your fingers stuff, not the "play loud music all night and day" stuff), I think that the AJLs of this world who selective subborn treason because its not "their" president, do not get the big picture here. Not only is that position hypocrasy, but you completely miss the wider and more important issue.
Let's say, for the sake of things, there is an extremely conservative group of people with sensitive information in the CIA and Hillary Clinton or some other Democrat is the President. They decide that they can undermine the presidency by leaking information that is damaging. Is it morally okay then or are you going to be screaming about security and undermining the security of the US?
Don't think that won't happen because, once we allow this to pass against one president, the war is on and every president after that is going to have to contend with this snake in his yard while each group inside tries to one up the other.
And, I'll remind you, the CIA was doing these kinds of rendition under Clinton and apparently suffered no such moral dilemma.
so, I call BS on you. Don't let your moralistic panty twisting get in the way of the bigger picture: what happens next when we let this past?
hmmmmm.....Were you guys this upset over the Plame leak?
avedis:
Do you even read my posts or just enter them with straw man arguments and caricatures already formed? Plame is discussed in the final paragraph. Moreover, I'd be very interested in seeing you argue how what happened Plame being wrong somehow justifies this if that is indeed the position you are advancing.
If there is any good coming out of the CIA, it's that we're all now discussing torture, and trying to debate what's right and what's wrong. The Bush administration circumventing this issue is AS BAD as leaking CIA info. If the Clinton Administration did it too, then they deserve a knock on the nose as well.
Does that make the leak right? No, I guess not. No CIA leak is 'good', but it happens all the time. This guy/girl should be found and removed from his job. I'm fine with that. Again, I will still be glad that this got to the media.
There is the idea in this country, that if the media does not cover it, it magically didn't happen. Well, I would argue that the families of the men who disappear know, and every time we do this to an individual who doesn't deserve it, we generate more hatred towards our nation.
We got caught with the hands in the cookie jar, can't we just fess up and deal with it?
A serious question.
Do we even know we are dealing with a CIA leak here? It seems to be the assumption in the comments but I'd say it's just as likely that the information was given out by someone who isn't in the CIA and, most likely isn't even a US citizen.
Did we really think we could set up detention facilities in other countries military installations without that news getting out?
So, your saying that the paper just said "ex and current intelligence officials" in order to throw everyone off the trail of their actual sources from other countries? And, since everyone believes it's CIA and the paper makes no attemtp to clarify it, then are they not propagating an assumption as a lie? And, why would they do that?
Davebo:
As most European governments are complicit in the hosting and operation of these facilities, they probably have the most to lose as far as leaking them to the press. ABC News attributed its sources to current and former CIA officials so if you do not believe this to be the case, I would take it up with them.
From Polish daily newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza, December 9 (ad hoc tr.)
http://serwisy.gazeta.pl/swiat/1,34174,3058071.html
Larry Johnson* interviewed by Marcin Gadzinski
excerpts:
A lesson of Abu Ghraib has been remembered in the CIA: Bush's team cannot be trusted to defend people who were fulfilling its orders. Therefore, the CIA agents have rised an alarm on the issue of secret prisons, so as not to become sacrificial scapegoats - says Larry Johnson
[passage omitted]
Q: Is this an internal fight of a part of the CIA with its new director, Porter Goss?
On the issue of prisoners in the war on terror Goss blindly supports the White House's position. When I talk with the Agency's employees, every time I hear how they are frustrated with this what is going on there. It's not the reform, but that they are told to keep indefinitely dozens of people without any law procedures, in some black holes all over the world. These employees are afraid that if something happens, the Agency's management will wash its hands and all the blame will be put on those who opened and managed those prisons, and not on those who gave the orders on these issues.
Q: Do we have often leaks from the CIA to the media, when its employees don't agree with politics of the administration?
There are two most frequent reasons for leaks. The first one is a concious attempt to manipulate public opinion. It takes place with the government's consent.
The second one - if there's a heated internal struggle in the Agency with regard to a political line chosen by the management. And these who don't like it, release a leak.
[passage omitted]
*Larry Johnson was a CIA officer in the 80's. In the 90's, he was a deputy director in the fight with terrorism in the US State Department.