Some Intelligence News

Why do people do this?

Influential Democrat asks Obama to keep spy chiefs

Reyes said he had recommended to Obama's transition team that CIA Director Michael Hayden and Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell be kept in place for at least six months.
"There's got to be some continuity, and the leadership of both the CIA and the DNI is going to be pivotal to keeping us safe and secure," Reyes said. "I made a recommendation that they stay on during the transition so that there would be a period of time that there would be overlap."

Because OMG!! whoever Obama hires would be really scary and noone would follow them and we need to stick to the status quo, I mean center!

Still time for the Shredder?

Obama Transition Team Pushing for Secret Legal Memos

A senior Justice Department official said today that "99.8 percent" of the department's work with President-elect Barack Obama's transition team has gone smoothly. The 0.2 percent snag: The department has reservations about granting the team's request to review classified legal opinions related to secret CIA and National Security Agency programs.
...

he Justice official said the department was reluctant to provide the opinions to Obama's team without permission from the two intelligence agencies whose activities they address. At the roundtable, Mukasey said OLC opinions are issued at the request of other agencies with their "own equity or interest in the information."

"And so what we try to do is determine whether, and to what extent, we can clear that information and try to do it as quickly as we can so as to get it to the transition team so that they're aware of all the things that they need when they take over on the 21st," Mukasey said, according to a transcript provided by the department.

WSJ:

The story explains that the dispute between Obama's team and the DOJ over the records has caught the attention of Williams & Connolly's Greg Craig (pictured), who has been named as the incoming White House counsel. The story cites an unnamed justice official as saying the agencies first want to sign off on any information disclosed to their new boss before turning over sensitive records.

Are they delaying the inevitable? Why would they hesitate to share this information? Is this normal? Apparently the CIA and NSA know that something isn't quite right with those memos...oh, but they don't expect to be prosecuted, oh no. I really don't understand what the point of the hesitation is. I hope I can find some kind of explanation for this behavior from someone more knowledgable on the nets.

Next up...putting together the pieces of the newest intelligence rumors. Maybe trying to figure out what it means to be "center" on intelligence policy (especially when "intelligence policy" in the media boils down to torture and terrorism).

New Links

The appointment story develops a bit with more speculation and a broader range of choices for intelligence positions:

AP:

CIA DIRECTOR
John Gannon, former deputy director for intelligence at the CIA during the Clinton administration
Jami Miscik, former head of CIA's analytical operations
Steve Kappes, CIA's current No. 2
Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., who now heads House Homeland Security subcommittee on intelligence.
John McLaughlin, former interim CIA chief

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE DIRECTOR
Denny Blair, retired admiral and former commander of the U.S. Pacific Command.
Don Kerr, No. 2 official in Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Jami Miscik, former head of CIA's analytical operations.
Former Rep. Tim Roemer, D-Ind.

CQ Politics:

Jeff Stein compiles a list of quotes from "intelligence sources" as to who would be good. Armitage stands out.

More on these people later.

Who Is Left?

Although the press appears to be moving on from the "Brennan as CIA director-Brennan got screwed" storyline to juicier tidbits about Hayden staying on, it still seems worthwhile to suggest a few alternatives to these two who have received the greatest amount of attention.

I have made the case for Rand Beers before. I will make it again in a little more depth here.

Beers was the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Combating Terrorism as of August 19, 2002. He was previously in International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs.

In March 2003 he left the Bush administration, before the invasion of Iraq. He spent a little less than 8 months in a counterrterrorism role in the National Security Council. After he left the Bush admin, he joined Kerry's team as an advisor.

His other qualifications include: working from 1988 to 1998 in the NSC as variously "Director for Counter-terrorism and Counter-narcotics, Director for Peacekeeping, and Senior Director for Intelligence Programs." Signing onto the Campaign to Ban Torture. Starting the National Security Network which has as its mission:

"We will faithfully honor the letter and the spirit of our
Constitution. We will never sanction torture, and we will never tolerate spying on law-abiding citizens."

He also wrote an article for the Washington Monthly entitled "No Torture. No Exceptions," in which he lays out the case against torture. As his critique includes the harsh treatment of Al-Libi in Egyptian and American custody, one can assume he is also against rendition. This fits with his endorsement of the Campaign to Ban Torture's declaration that:

"The Rule of Law
We will acknowledge all prisoners to our courts or the
International Red Cross. We will in no circumstance hold persons in secret
prisons or engage in disappearances. In all cases, prisoners will have the
opportunity to prove their innocence in ways that fully conform to American
principles of fairness.
Duty to Protect
We acknowledge our historical
commitment to end the use of torture and cruelty in the world. The US will
not transfer any person to countries that use torture or cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment."

What should encourage you is that a guy who believes that we will "never tolerate spying on law-abiding citizens" advises Obama on homeland security. What one might question is why Rand Beers is not being circulated as the go-to-go more frequently considering his breadth of knowledge on counterterrorism issues and years of service. Just not a popular guy? What is the deal?

Some people are saying that who Obama chooses for his staff positions - people to whom he is delegating the responsibility of managing entire agencies! - is not so important. But isn't it a lot easier to implement the policies you want if the person doing the actual implementation of the policies agrees with you?

Rand Beers agrees with the most liberal aspects of Obama's policy. And unlike Brennan whose stance on FISA was that telecom companies should be protected for following the Bush admin's lead on the warrantless wiretapping program, Beers has signed onto this:

"Clarity and Accountability
All US personnel—whether
soldiers or intelligence staff—deserve the certainty that they are implementing
policy that complies fully with the law. Henceforth all US officials who
authorize, implement, or fail in their duty to prevent the use of torture and
ill-treatment of prisoners will be held accountable, regardless of rank or
position."

That is an extremely promising vision of accountability in a post-Bush world. And the fact that Beers is talented at seeing through Bush - and McConnell's - BS is another admirable trait. I also think Beers may be outsider enough to not present a flagrant conflict of interest if Obama decides to investigate torture/rendition or prosecute even.

Beers is not without transgressions - and for some they may be dealbreakers. He has strong critics against his policies in Colombia. See the links here (from his Sourcewatch). Also Al Giordano probably will not be a fan.

All in all though, I think Beers is the man for this job (especially if you consider the competition). As others have pointed out, George HW Bush was appointed to the CIA by Ford, well outside of the CIA insider track (and talk about political appointments - HW had headed the flippin' Republican National Committee three years earlier). But guess what Big George received for his role in the CIA? You guessed it, high praise - "Bush was credited with helping to restore the agency's morale."

So there you go. I'm pushing the story. Let's have these whispers amount to reality. "Intelligence sources" can and ought to suck it up and accept an outsider like they did before. And I will go back to believing that most of the "intelligence sources" in the CIA are interested in covering their @sses and/or are friends of Tenet.

Brennan: "The Big Torture Opponent"

Hmm...

From CBS Evening News, Sept 18 2006:

COURIC: All right, Bob Schieffer. Bob, thanks so much. Well, all of the political back and forth may have obscured the real issue here: How far exactly can CIA interrogators go when it comes to extracting important information from suspected terrorists? We asked national security correspondent David Martin to find out. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DAVID MARTIN, CBS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): CIA Director Michael Hayden has briefed members of Congress on so-called stress-inducing techniques used to extract information from high-level terrorists -- tactics the president has called tough. Tactics former CIA official and now CBS News consultant John Brennan says would still be used.
(on camera): What are the tough tactics that the CIA wants to use?

JOHN BRENNAN, CBS NEWS TERRORISM ANALYST: Sleep deprivation, you know, long periods of standing, other types of things that will try to wear down a detainee`s resistance to questioning.

MARTIN (voice-over): Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch says that depending on how harshly the techniques are applied, they would violate the Geneva Conventions ban on cruel treatment, which now applies to prisoners held by the CIA.

TOM MALINOWSKI, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: Extended sleep deprivation, forced standing, where a prisoner is forced to stand motionless for up to 40 hours at a time, induced hypothermia, in which a prisoner is subjected to extremely cold temperatures, and also the technique of using all of these techniques at the same time.

MARTIN: The CIA has used its most aggressive techniques, including waterboarding, in which the prisoner is made to feel like he`s drowning, against a handful of terrorists like Khalid Shaik Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of 9/11. But Brennan says the CIA now recognizes it went too far.

BRENNAN: I think the increasing consensus is that waterboarding and some of the more aggressive tactics like that are something that may be beyond what that line should be.

MARTIN: But human rights activists like Malinowski argue that any technique for inducing stress ends up being cruel.

MALINOWSKI: A little bit of cold, a little bit of discomfort isn`t going to cut it with a hardened prisoner like a Khalid Shaik Mohammed. If you apply these methods, you are always going to apply them beyond the point of a prisoner`s tolerance.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

Brennan does not like waterboarding by most accounts, but it is unclear as to what he finds appropriate - and it is well documented that extended isolation and sleep deprivation are as tortuous and painful as other techniques.

What is also interesting is that Brennan seems unable to say the CIA has even used waterboarding from one moment to the next. Check out his CBS interview of Nov 2007:

BRENNAN: Yes, and a sort of classic water boarding, and I'm not saying the CIA has ever used water boarding, but there would be a constant stream of water
and a volume of water that is going to be continuous. Here they stop in between on
occasions.

So what makes the difference here between Brennan acknowledging or not acknowledging it? I think an investigation of the political moment would be interesting. But I do not think this is the stance of a big torture opponent. On top of everything else of course.

Parsing Feinstein

Oh, where would the Democratic Party be without its fingers in the wind?

Glenn Greenwald provides a massive takedown of Wyden and Feinstein's comments in the NYT article I posted about yesterday here.

But I would like to focus on Feinstein's full statement as quoted in Time.

"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.

Obama has a mandate to end torture. And he should do it. There is no need to consider "other views" and there is no need to suggest Democrats are being good sports by doing so.

The New York Times and the CIA

The New York Times published a pretty extraordinary article about the CIA and Obama's transition team today. You can read that article here.

My read is that those who think Obama can call the shots from the seat of a 60 Minutes interview are a little too trusting. Read on:

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who will take over as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee in January, led the fight this year to force the C.I.A. to follow military interrogation rules. Her bill was passed by Congress but vetoed by President Bush.

But in an interview on Tuesday, Mrs. Feinstein indicated that extreme cases might call for flexibility. “I think that you have to use the noncoercive standard to the greatest extent possible,” she said, raising the possibility that an imminent terrorist threat might require special measures.

Afterward, however, Mrs. Feinstein issued a statement saying: “The law must reflect a single clear standard across the government, and right now, the best choice appears to be the Army Field Manual. I recognize that there are other views, and I am willing to work with the new administration to consider them.”

Why is Senator Feinstein hedging on torture? Is she getting a signal from Obama for some unfathomable reason that maybe he doesn't want to do this? Is she anticipating a Republican sobfest? There are many reasons not to torture; among them, strategically, it does us no good to continue sending a message to the world in any way that we do not need to follow international rules or respect human dignity. This is the torture as bad foreign policy argument. That Feinstein is suggesting that we reserve the right to torture as we see fit...is either a reflection of an NYT staff with a mountain-sized agenda, or a completely idiotic move to continue embracing our now horrible international image while pretending to make minor changes. You really can't go incremental on torture and expect anything to change.

Nor do I know who Feinstein is gesturing at when she speaks of "other views." But I don't think it's political good news that Feinstein is out creating space for dissent when it comes to...torture.

I'm telling you, this kind of stuff comes back to bite you in the ass.

I think it is also worthwhile to examine the other sources in this NYT article. For example, A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard:

A. B. Krongard, the C.I.A.’s third-ranking official under Mr. Tenet when the detention and interrogation program was created, called Mr. Brennan a “casualty of war” and said he believed C.I.A. tactics were being second-guessed for
political purposes. The demise of Mr. Brennan’s candidacy, Mr. Krongard said, “is a huge loss to the country.”

But Mr. Krongard said he believed that ultimately, under a new director and a new set of policies, the agency would find common ground with Mr. Obama.

This is pretty remarkable. We are talking about Buzzy Blackwater Krongard here. In the interests of disclosure, it might've been wise of the NYT to tell us that Brennan from 2001-2003 was Krongard's deputy. Think that would've added anything to Krongard's emotional context? Plus, almost exactly a year ago Krongard drew attention for being a member of Blackwater's advisory board.

The upper level CIA people are happy to grow wealthy as private contractors. Of course they're not going to advocate change. The Columbia Journalism Review also makes mincemeat here of the NYT's presentation of the article and reliance on a few voices close to John Brennan.

The larger point is that the NYT and Mark Mazzetti of their intelligence beat are seemingly ill-dispositioned to explore the motivations of some of the players in their articles. If I ask Cheney, Addington, or Yoo about the Bush administration, they are probably going to be supportive.

It is up to others to do the reporting.

Edit: If you are interested in my writings thus far on the CIA and Brennan's role in the Obama camp, please check out this link. I post as lilburro on TL.

Introduction

Hi there. I hope this is the beginning of a minor project that will assist efforts to ban the use of torture in this country (or otherwise sponsored by this country) and to seek prosecution of those who committed such war crimes.

My goal here is to draw attention to news items about the CIA/intelligence community and to scrutinize the presentation of the CIA and the Obama admin in the media. My goal is also to provide a resource for those interested in learning who the figures quoted in such articles are and what they have done. I hope that by providing context and adding analysis I will help keep the pressure on the Obama administration to do the right thing when it comes to our treatment of detainees and our conduct in the war on terror.

Nothing would make me happier than to be part of a "trendy" microblogging community devoted to banning torture and correcting our laws! I hope it happens. But we surely must remain vigilant, so here goes.