Tag Archives: CIA

Powell admits complicity in torture, sort of; denies knowing its role with sources of claims he endorsed

Posted on by
Reply

…and, oh yeah, he’s still a Republican.

Colin Powell was on Face The Nation today. Bob Schieffer lead the interview by asking him first about a recent volley of remarks that one might say started with Powell critizing conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh during Q&A at a cybersecurity conference, as reported by Chris Strohm of Congress Daily. Then Cheney went on the record, also on Face The Nation, after being asked by Schieffer, saying he’d pick Limbaugh over Powell. Powell’s response this morning was, in part, to affirm he still saw himself as a Republican and to invoke Jack Kemp as an example he admired.

Washington’s stenographers must’ve started scribbling as soon as they heard this because that has become the headline of the day at both the Washington Post (“Still a Republican, Powell Urges Party to Become More Inclusive“) and the New York Times (“Powell Still a Republican, Despite Party Differences“).

But Schieffer also asked Powell if he agreed that EITs were effective and when he knew about them. Powell claimed to have been kept apart, without direct knowledge, and that the CIA “had to be given some room” (really, given their history of abuse?). Schieffer didn’t ask Powell why he didn’t insist on knowing the nature of the elicitations in which were given to him and his aid, Lawrence Wilkerson, as evidence for claims he had to make to the world.

While admitting being party to some discussions, Powell pleaded ignorance, saying “I don’t know know what I don’t know.” Logic hard to deny, but he’s really not saying anything there. Almost Rumsfeldian.

Continue reading →

Parsing the dark side

Posted on by
Reply

Recently the Central Intelligence Agency made news with a high profile announcement about “black sites” and interrogation methods.

CIA, as always, used very careful language:

CIA no longer operates detention facilities or black sites and has proposed a plan to decommission the remaining sites…

This seems to make it clear that there remain such sites, that the CIA doesn’t believe it is the operating authority of them, but they do seem to believe they have the authority or at least influence to decommission them (this may be a red herring). It seems notable to mention that it has been a long-standing practice, before these apparently post-9/11 black sites, for the United States to hand-off prisoners to other countries who have widely been understood to use torture. They’ve always used the language of plausible deniability with regards to these relationships, so there is no reason to believe any similar language now.

Obama’s CIA pick brushes off history and questions

Posted on by

We are not surprised, but we are unimpressed by Obama’s nominee to run the Central Intelligence Agency. During his confirmation hearing Thursday, Leon Panetta appeared to make at least a couple inaccurate statements during his Thursday appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

When asked by Hatch, Panetta seemed to confirm an assertion by Senator Hatch (to quote a reporter paraphrasing the exchange) that “all major countries and intelligence agencies believed Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.” (We don’t have But this is plainly not true. We can start with the Downing Street Memo and demonstrated that the British were skeptical, but of course their political leadership was playing along. Even the Washington Post, in the lead-up to the war, published the news of leaks that were were internal arguments at CIA.

Charles Davis noted that Panetta (and Senator Evan Bayh) misrepresented a National Intelligence Estimate with regards to Iran.

This is just like the Clinton and Bush administration habits of mis-stating how and when UN weapons inspectors left Iraq, of ascribing motivation without providing evidence, and of ignoring past admissions by the government that debunk prior false statements.

If we were there, we would have liked to ask some follow-up questions and have these statements directly reconciled with the public record.

It turns out Panetta doesn’t like those either.

Whatever solace you choose to take from vague but perhaps seemingly more progressive statements by Panetta on torture tactics, we remain worried that he doesn’t know or has chosen to deny the actual facts of recent history. Even if given the benefit of the doubt, we believe clear language and contribution of additional hard fact to eliminate controversy is the way to go. A confirmation hearing would be the place to demonstrate this skill.