by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright Aug 27, 2009
All Rights Reserved.

                 Atty. General Eric H. Holder Jr. gave the green light to investigate for possible prosecution CIA interrogators for unlawful interviews of Guantanamo Bay detainees.  Reports of harsh interrogations, including waterboarding, death threats, sleep deprivation, loud music, exposure to insects, barking dogs, etc., were expressly prohibited by the U.S. Constitution and 1949 Geneva Convention, banning cruel and unusual punishment and torture.  In the wake of Sept. 11, the government was in the dark about how it was possible for terrorists to fly under the radar screen and cause so much damage.  It took months to dig out of the Pentagon and World Trade Center’s rubble.  White House officials, headed by former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, thought it was far too dangerous to let actionable intelligence escape by not conducting vigorous and abusive interrogations.

            Bush, Cheney, FBI Director Louis J. Freeh, CIA Director George J. Tenet realized the extreme vulnerability of the nation’s defenses following Sept. 11.  After sustaining the worst attack on the homeland in U.S. history, the government sought any-and-all intelligence to prevent another terrorist attack.  Cheney repeatedly reminds Obama administration skeptics that the nation hasn’t been attacked in eight years.  While not proved, Cheney insists that harsh interrogation of Guantanamo Bay prisoners produced actionable intelligence to avert future attacks.  Holder can certainly examine methods used by CIA or CIA-contracted interrogators to determine whether or not they (a) complied with White House orders or (b) violated any U.S. or international laws.  Holder needs to ascertain whether or not the CIA or CIA-contracted interrogators crossed the line.

               When the Patriot Act passed Oct. 26, 2001, it was designed to give the government new tools, including enhanced surveillance, to intercept terrorism.  U.S. intelligence agencies failed miserably to protect the homeland on Sept. 11.  Bush White House officials set up the Office of Homeland Security Oct. 8, 2001 run by former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge to coordinate agencies involved in immigration, law enforcement and intelligence gathering.  It wasn’t until Nov. 25, 2002 that became the Cabinet level Dept. of Homeland Security.  At the same time, Bush and Cheney began relying heavily on a little known Pentagon agency called the Office of Special Plans, run by Douglas Feith Jr.  While not authorized to collect intelligence, OSP evaluated intelligence, specifically related to possible terrorist movements.  They fed the White House the analysis on Osama bin Laden, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.

            Bush and Cheney relied on the OSP after intel failures at the FBI and CIA.  Holder’s decision to investigate CIA or CIA-contracted interrogators, while needed, doesn’t address serious lapses that led the Bush administration to heed the advice of a little known Pentagon agency created by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and managed by Feith.  With blessings from Homeland Security, the OSP supplied much of the bogus intel on which the Iraq War was based, including, unverified claims by German Intelligence about Saddam’s mobile germ laboratories.  Conservatives object to the Obama administration looking backward, investigating past interrogation practices because it doesn’t take into account the desperate state of the government to prevent more terrorist attacks.  It also doesn’t deal with Bush White House policies and legal rulings making harsh interrogation acceptable.

            Appointing a special counsel and opening up an investigation into possible legal breaches by CIA interrogators diverts attention away from today’s health care debate.  With Sen. Edward M. Kennedy passing, Obama has a renewed chance of passing meaningful health care reform, unless the country gets sidetracked with extraneous political matters.  With partisan rancor as high as ever, embarrassing the CIA could have far-reaching consequences  “It’s up to the president to chose our terror fighters over terrorists, to choose troops over ACLU lawyers, to choose national security over politics,” said Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), expressing disgust over Obama administration plans to prosecute CIA interrogators.  When you consider the context of Sept. 11, nitpicking about what the CIA or its contractors did to extract information from terrorists seems like overkill.

            Obama’s decision to allow Atty. Gen. Holder to investigate and possibly prosecute CIA interrogators diverts attention away from more serious issues.  National health care and the Afghanistan War weigh heavily on the minds of most voters, not whether CIA interrogators broke U.S. or international laws against torture or coercive interrogation.  Judging by available Bush White House documents, senior officials gave the CIA the green light to get any and all intel from Guantanamo Bay detainees.  If laws were broken and there’s a basis for prosecution, the Justice Dept. should look at senior White House officials, like Bush, Cheney, Rusmsfeld, Rice, etc. before going after underlings on the food chain.  Instead looking back, Obama should ask Holder to ascertain who authorized harsh interrogation practices.  Blaming low-level functionaries accomplishes nothing.

 John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.