RSS
Print This PageThe Former CIA Directors’ Letter to President Obama
In case you were curious about the text of the letter sent by former directors of the CIA to President Obama urging him to reverse the AG’s decision to appoint a prosecutor to investigate various CIA activities under the Bush administration, RCP has posted a pdf of the text. It is short and, unsurprisingly, rests on the names of the signatories rather than anything especially said in its text. Not being very clued into the day to day politics of these things, I don’t really know what effect this kind of thing has, if any. However, here is the pdf. (Update: Here is the WaPo story from Saturday, September 19, 2009, reporting that the DOJ investigation is likely to be “narrow.”)
Related Posts
8 Responses
Trackbacks and Pingbacks
- There are no trackbacks or pingbacks associated with this post at this time.
I can’t imagine why anyone would care that former CIA directors don’t want the CIA investigated. But I am struck by one notable absence from the list: George H.W. Bush!
at 10:32 pm EST Kevin Jon Heller
I note also that the letter erroneously claims CIA interrogators will be required to pay for their defence. That is, of course, inaccurate: the Detainee Treatment Act provides that the government will pick up their tab. I guess the CIA directors didn’t bother to read the Act (which would explain a great deal)…
at 10:35 pm EST Kevin Jon Heller
very good point!
at 10:35 pm EST Kenneth Anderson
Both of KJH’s points been addressed on other sites, but I’ll mention the rebuttals here.
First, H.W. likely refrained from signing the letter because of his status as a former President.
Second, Holder’s investigation is looking at whether CIA interrogators went beyond what they were authorized. It is not clear that the DTA covers their defence is such circumstances.
at 11:39 pm EST humblelawstudent
HLS’s first point is unpersuasive: if Bush agreed with his fellow Directors, you’d think he’d want to use his stature as a former President to oppose the investigations. There is no limit on a former President’s ability to speak up about policy issues of concern to him.
That said, having read the DTA more carefully, HLS’s second point may well be correct. (See s. 1004(a),(b).) I certainly hope so!
at 11:57 pm EST Kevin Jon Heller
Hayden, Goss and Tenet are worried about themselves being prosecuted – that’s all the letter is about – whatever high-minded phrases are in there.
It should be noted that the prosecutor John Durham was seconded from Connecticut to the Eastern District of Virginia (the prosecutors who investigated the earlier matters) because those prosecutors recused themselves due to conflict of interest and out of an abundance of caution. The obvious question that arises here is the true independence of the prior investigations – were those prosecutors willing to “follow the facts wherever they lead” as Mukasey’s public affairs person assured the Society of American Law Teachers on January 14, 2009 on John Durham when his office responded to our calls for a prosecutor. That letter is available at http://www.saltlaw.org/userfiles/1-14-09DOJtoSALT.pdf and all the exchanges/actions by SALT are at http://www.saltlaw.org/contents/view/195. (Full disclosure: I am Co-chair of SALT’s Human Rights Committee).
John Durham was originally appointed by Mukasey because of the destruction of the torture tapes revealed by Michael Hayden and others in December 2008 – so Hayden really is caught in a bind. Those tapes were done and hidden under Goss and Tenet’s watches and so all the antics with them are part of what Durham will examine. Holder’s expanding of Durham’s remit makes him the absolute nightmare for torture apologists on the Republican or Democratic side – a true bi-partisan prosecutor NOT appointed under a special prosecutor law that would be subject to the kinds of challenges that have been done to such laws in the past. That is why these CIA Directors are not sleeping well. Good for them – sleep deprivation they’ve been telling us for so many years is not a big deal.
As to the other CIA directors, some or all of them are there to give “bipartisan” cover probably to support those Democrats who also are at risk for going along with the torture like Cong. Jane Harman who was on the House Intelligence Committee at the key times but told a conference at Duke in April 2005 she heard about all this stuff in the newspaper. In 2007 that was found out to be completely disingenuous as she desperately sought to salvage her reputation by seeking CIA declassification of a very tepid letter she had written back in the key period.
As to George H.W. Bush, the point is that he pardoned the Iran Contra government persons (not those in the private sector who were part of the conspiracy - memo to CIA contractors – “watch your back”) and argued he was out of the loop on that stuff done in the Reagan Administration. He probably is preferring to lie low rather than have all that stuff brought back up.
Don’t look for heroes in these guys – just look for their interests to protect their butts from facing a jury of their peers in a U.S. District Court.
The thing is to keep pressure on to allow the space for John Durham to “follow the facts wherever they lead.” That is the essence of the task now that a bipartisan prosecutor is in place – a major victory for all who have called for that for years now.
It is by keeping insisting on allowing Durham to go forward that people will open up to Durham – for fear of their own liability – and the evidence will be gathered, brought to a grand jury, and indictments come out for the torture.
In my Refluat Stercus article from last year I listed about 50 persons of interest – as witnesses and possible defendants – on the torture. They might consider calling John Durham to help make sure they are in the witness category and do not turn up in the defendant category.
In this regard, having been at Case for the “After Guantanamo” conference on 9/11 I wrote a piece in a similar vein that just went up at Jurist. The link to that is http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2009/09/torture-tales-calling-john-durham.php .
So Bellinger, Waxman, Cormey, Goldsmith, Yoo and all the others, give John Durham a call and tell him what you know – under oath. No need to regal us with stories at conferences, write books or articles, appear on television interview shows, etc to spin this stuff. Regal the prosecutor who can do something about it. If you are man enough to do what is right for the country, not even speaking about legal and ethical obligations.
Best,
Ben
at 7:51 am EST Benjamin Davis
KJH,
At least in my memory, former Presidents rarely make (or sign on to) public statements that criticize the policy of a sitting President (maybe Carter has, but I’m pretty sure H.W., Clinton, and Reagan have not). Is that because former Presidents always agreed with policies of whoever was President? I don’t think so . . .
at 9:25 am EST humblelawstudent
David Cole’s October 8, 2009 New York Review of Books article entitled The Torture Memos: The Case Against the Lawyers is available also at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23114?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_content=92432244&utm_campaign=October+8%2c+2009+issue+_+khujdk&utm_term=TheTortureMemosTheCaseAgainsttheLawyers
He comes out for a truth commission – a blink after the devastating analysis he does of the memos released with the CIA IG report - but his analysis appears trenchant of the lawyering involved.
Best,
Ben
at 5:11 pm EST Benjamin Davis