Tuesday, July 17, 2007
The enemy within
Swiss Senator Dick Marty, author of a Council of Europe report on CIA jails, says dissident United States intelligence officers angry with former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped a European probe uncover details of secret CIA prisons in Europe.
The senator said senior CIA officials disapproved of Rumsfeld's methods in hunting down terrorist suspects, and had agreed to talk to him on condition of anonymity.
"There were huge conflicts between the CIA and Rumsfeld. Many leading figures in the CIA did not accept these methods at all," Marty told European Parliament committees, defending his work against complaints it was based on unnamed sources.
If the story is true, should we be worried that the CIA has insufficient control over its own "officials" that it cannot prevent the subversion of the policies of the elected president of the United States? Or, worse, that in the years following September 11 the CIA was waging a calculated bureaucratic war against a policy that for better or for worse has coincided with no new attacks on American soil? Finally, if in a generation's time the great historians of that era conclude that the permanent foreign policy establishment worked tirelessly to frustrate the policies of the Bush administration, would you say that was bad news for American democracy, or good news?
MORE: Of course, we eagerly await the demands from the New York Times editorial page that these leakers of classified information about covert CIA operations and operatives be prosecuted to the limits of the law. After all, if spreading the rumor that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA justified the appointment of a special prosecutor, surely these leakers -- who revealed actually covert operations -- should also face the bar of justice.
16 Comments:
By 
Purple Avenger, at
Tue Jul 17, 11:18:00 PM:
If true, the CIA needs cleaning out. CIA needs to understand that it is a service organization providing product and services to whoever the administration is at the time.
Anyone who doesn't like what's going on needs to simply submit their resignation and seek employment elsewhere if they find their differences irreconcilable.
By 
, at
Tue Jul 17, 11:40:00 PM:
Subversion in a time of war...
There's a name for that, isn't there?
By , at
Wed Jul 18, 01:11:00 AM:
"Or, worse, that in the years following September 11 the CIA was waging a calculated bureaucratic war against a policy that for better or for worse has coincided with no new attacks on American soil?"
In my opinion, it is disingenuous to phrase your point that way. What if I had written,
"Or, worse, that in the years following September 11 the CIA was waging a calculated bureaucratic war against a policy that the CIA officers felt they had a duty to oppose because it was brutal and unethical?"
The real problem is the same in both phrasings - the CIA and the president are at loggerheads, and the CIA should clearly be obeying the orders of the president and not leaking secret information. But trying to score rhetorical points by hinting that correlation implies causation, is just, well, cheap. No one has any knowledge either way whether the secret CIA prisons actually produced actionable intelligence; in fact, since the CIA saw fit to out them, I'd guess that they didn't. But when the CIA is leaking info about secret prisons, the point is that a discussion of whether or not the prisons were successful is just as irrelevant as whether or not they were ethical. The leaks shouldn't be happening, and it does not inspire confidence in the administration's leadership that it can't get all its departments sufficiently behind the mission to stop this kind of thing.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Jul 18, 06:49:00 AM:
Phrizz, you are probably right about my cheap rhetorical point. You can't write 1500 blog posts a year without an occasional foray into cheap rhetorical points.
That said, I strenuously disagree with this: ...it does not inspire confidence in the administration's leadership that it can't get all its departments sufficiently behind the mission to stop this kind of thing.
There is no question that Bush's foreign policy -- a long term strategy of bringing democracy to the Middle East -- was radical in its conception. Whether or not the political and social liberalization of the Arab and Muslim world is the only hope for long-term relief from Islamic jihad, it is extremely threatening to many Western interests. In particular, if you are a CIA case officer or Foreign Service Officer, you have spent your career building up relationships with hideous princes and brutal colonels and generals throughout the region. These people are your career assets. Well, if the president comes along and says, as this one did, that we will no longer support stability at the expense of democracy, that is threatening not only to the regimes in the region but to those people in the West, including in the CIA and State, whose careers are built on their relationship with people that Bush wants removed from power. So what did they do? Many of them opposed Bush's strategy by every means possible, including through illegal leaking and so forth.
Now, I'm not saying these people are cynical. I think many of them genuinely disagree with the Bush administration's policies. But I also believe that these institutions (and others, by the way, including many people in American business who would prefer to deal with Prince so-and-so than actual non-royal people) opposed Bush because if successful his policy would have made many of our spies and diplomats (and private "fixers") much less relevant.
I am not a romantic about dealing with foreign countries. I know we have to deal with Arab kings and tin-pot generals and other disgusting people. But I think our spies and diplomats often develop personal relationships that make it difficult for them to remember that virtually all of these people, including the supposedly moderate ones like King Hussein of Jordan, are actually complete scumbags. But then, I am a rather intense anti-royalist, and believe that non-constitutional monarchy is an even less legitimate form of government than fascism. If you like kings and such, maybe you should become an Arabist and go work in the State Department.
By Mike, at
Wed Jul 18, 06:51:00 AM:
I'd guess the prisons had some positive effect on actionable intelligence. But I'm with Phrizz - the issue is the leak of highly classified info, not the wisdom of the policy.
By Cassandra, at
Wed Jul 18, 08:29:00 AM:
It is ludicrous for CIA employees to suddenly complain about a renditions program that has been in effect since 1995.
Where were these brave truth tellers during the Clinton administration when we were rendering terrorism suspects and delivering them to known human rights abusers with no guarantee that they would be treated humanely (this according to Michael Scheuer, the man who ran the program in formal testimony to Congress) and we were not even at war?
Where were Dana Priest and the WaPo then when we were doing the exact same thing, yet we had not even been attacked?
All this laudable concern for the human rights of terrorism suspects positively reeks of political expediency.
*crickets chirping*
By Georg Felis, at
Wed Jul 18, 10:27:00 AM:
Morality: As a CIA employee who receives instructions to carry out a task to which I have moral objections, I would have a moral obligation to report my objections to supervisor.
If my objections are not heeded, and I still disagree with the policy, I have an obligation to complain up the chain of command as far as allowed. As a last resort, I would be obligated to resign my position, stating that the reason for my resignation is the policy I have a moral problem with. Only if the moral issue is overwhelming would I then be morally obligated to violate my oath and state my objections publicly. There will be consequences, I may go to jail, but this is the path taken by Civil Rights protesters and other people of conscience. There is absolutely no morality to violating your oath and slipping these little tidbits out the back door to your friendly reporter while you keep your cushy job. But then again, this is Washington.
By Escort81, at
Wed Jul 18, 11:36:00 AM:
Excellent thread. Georgfelis makes a good point that a disgruntled CIA employee can take the path of conscience rather than leak. Everyone wants to be a player and a policy maker (or at least policy influencer), so that makes the path of expediency more tempting, especially if you are a case officer and you are trained to manipulate a situation covertly. I suppose this could be termed a type of blowback.
By , at
Wed Jul 18, 12:16:00 PM:
Where is James Angelton when we need him? Oh, right, dead. Damn.
andrewdb
By , at
Wed Jul 18, 12:36:00 PM:
Even a Democrat congress should be smart enough, and frightened enough, to recognize the serious threat to national security this behavior poses.
Andrew
By Cassandra, at
Wed Jul 18, 03:09:00 PM:
...it does not inspire confidence in the administration's leadership that it can't get all its departments sufficiently behind the mission to stop this kind of thing
This is a ridiculous statement.
People who leak are violating the terms of their employment.
Period.
There are avenues set up for them to blow the whistle on activities that worry them, but these people CHOSE not to use those vehicles. They CHOSE to break their sworn word. They are inherently untrustworthy people, but somehow it is the administration's fault that they have no respect for what they promised to do when they were hired if they ever ran across anything that made them uncomfortable?
Give me a break. That's like blaming legislators because criminals still break laws: "It does not inspire confidence that Congress can't get all Americans sufficiently behind Law X that no one will ever want to break it..."
Ummm...
Yeah. Leaking classified information is against the law. And regarding "in the years following September 11 the CIA was waging a calculated bureaucratic war against a policy that the CIA officers felt they had a duty to oppose because it was brutal and unethical?"
What about before 9/11?
We were doing the same thing BEFORE 9/11. We've been rendering terrorism suspects to human rights abusers since 1995. Where were their objections THEN?
Or did their objections to the renditions program only crystalize when George Bush was elected?
By Cassandra, at
Wed Jul 18, 03:11:00 PM:
And if anyone is interested, under the Bush administration, there has been far more protection of suspects' rights than there was under Clinton and the program became more effective in the opinion of the program's founder.
Interesting, no?
Not to Dana Priest. It's right in the Congressional testimony. Hidden in plain sight.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Jul 18, 06:44:00 PM:
This story doesn't quite ring true. The Secretary of Defense has no authority over the CIA. None. Nothing. And several organizations in the DoD operate under the purview of the CIA because of the nature of their missions.
There are several possibilities as to why the Senator would claim this, but none of them are completely honest. It's a bit like declaring, "I hate Condie Rice, so I'm going to sell government secrets to China!"
By Whiskey, at
Wed Jul 18, 10:48:00 PM:
GWB was unable and unwilling to fire people for leaking, or even better close down the CIA and start up a new organization because of leaks.
What he should do is when the next attack happens, blame the leaks and the jeopardizing of the program on the CIA, and Congress, and shut the place down.
Restarting with a new team. He has nothing to lose politically anyway and it would be good politics to finally hold people accountable.
Yes some CIA officers may have concerns about AQ terrorists rights. And their connections at Georgetown cocktail parties. They ought to also be accountable if another attack succeeds and Americans die. At the very least people at the CIA (all of them really) should be fired and only those who can prove their ability and loyalty invited to re-apply for their jobs.
If need be have them sit in a warehouse counting pieces of paper. But they should be publicly identified as failing in their duty to protect Americans. They want to play the morally superior card? Fine. Then they must bear the blame for each attack that kills Americans.
By Reliapundit, at
Wed Jul 18, 11:25:00 PM:
glad you and pjm got on this.
it's huge.
ties into rowan's book.
we posted on it earlier:
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2007/07/renegade-cia-dissenters-leaked.html
linked to by memeorandum.
spread the word: there are traitors within.
By Reliapundit, at
Wed Jul 18, 11:26:00 PM:
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2007/07/renegade-cia-
dissenters-leaked.html
