CIA working hard to protect its image
Burnishing the image of the CIA (“Criminals in Action”) is pretty much a fulltime job: the Agency has missed all the big events of our time, while busy running drugs and overthrowing democratically elected governments to install right-wing dictators, while teaching their minions the arts of torture. The CIA, so far as I can tell, is primarily a source of national shame, while it continually misses things like the building of the Berlin Wall, the fall of the Berlin Wall, whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and so on and on and on.
Now they are trying to rewrite the history of 9/11, as reported by Scott Shane in the NY Times:
In what amounts to a fight over who gets to write the history of the Sept. 11 attacks and their aftermath, the Central Intelligence Agency is demanding extensive cuts from the memoir of a former F.B.I. agent who spent years near the center of the battle against Al Qaeda.
The agent, Ali H. Soufan, argues in the book that the C.I.A. missed a chance to derail the 2001 plot by withholding from the F.B.I. information about two future 9/11 hijackers living in San Diego, according to several people who have read the manuscript. And he gives a detailed, firsthand account of the C.I.A.’s move toward brutal treatment in itsinterrogations, saying the harsh methods used on the agency’s first important captive, Abu Zubaydah, were unnecessary and counterproductive.
Neither critique of the C.I.A. is new. In fact, some of the information that the agency argues is classified, according to two people who have seen the correspondence between the F.B.I. and C.I.A., has previously been disclosed in open Congressional hearings, the report of the national commission on 9/11 and even the 2007 memoir of George J. Tenet, the former C.I.A. director.
Mr. Soufan, an Arabic-speaking counterterrorism agent who played a central role in most major terrorism investigations between 1997 and 2005, has told colleagues he believes the cuts are intended not to protect national security but to prevent him from recounting episodes that in his view reflect badly on the C.I.A.
Some of the scores of cuts demanded by the C.I.A. from Mr. Soufan’s book, “The Black Banners: The Inside Story of 9/11 and the War Against Al Qaeda,” seem hard to explain on security grounds.
Among them, according to the people who have seen the correspondence, is a phrase from Mr. Soufan’s 2009 testimony at a Senate hearing, freely available both as video and transcript on the Web. Also chopped are references to the word “station” to describe the C.I.A.’s overseas offices, common parlance for decades.
The agency removed the pronouns “I” and “me” from a chapter in which Mr. Soufan describes his widely reported role in the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, an important terrorist facilitator and training camp boss. And agency officials took out references to the fact that a passport photo of one of the 9/11 hijackers who later lived in San Diego, Khalid al-Midhar, had been sent to the C.I.A. in January 2000 — an episode described both in the 9/11 commission report and Mr. Tenet’s book.
In a letter sent Aug. 19 to the F.B.I.’s general counsel, Valerie E. Caproni, a lawyer for Mr. Soufan, David N. Kelley, wrote that “credible sources have told Mr. Soufan that the agency has made a decision that this book should not be published because it will prove embarrassing to the agency.”
In a statement, Mr. Soufan called the C.I.A’s redactions to his book “ridiculous” but said he thought he would prevail in getting them restored for a later edition.
He said he believed that counterterrorism officers have an obligation to face squarely “where we made mistakes and let the American people down.” He added: “It saddens me that some are refusing to address past mistakes.” . . .
Continue reading. The CIA denies everything. That’s what they do. A person who would trust the CIA should not be allowed out of the house without an escort.
I would say that 90% if not practically all the Agencies operations were authorized through Presidential findings including Nixon’s Watergate Apt break-in, that although technically not a Agency Op still used personal associated.
I find it astounding that people continue blame the CIA like it is some independent criminal enterprise when the orders for their actions actually came from above, many actions that we will never know as they are shrouded in secrecy, secrecy that our own government allows in the CIA mandate, if one were to bother to read them.
Nick
26 August 2011 at 11:40 am
So if someone ordered you to torture a person, you’d go right at it, right? And if you were brought before a judge, you’d say that you were only following orders.
Alas, since Nuremberg miscreants have not been able to fall back on their orders. The culprits at the CIA are totally guilty, regardless of the orders they got. And those who gave those orders are guilty as well. I’d like see Bush/Cheney marched into the dock right along with the entire chain of command down to and including those who tortured and killed prisoners. They all should hang.
That’s just my opinion of course, and I’d settle for 65 years of hard labor.
LeisureGuy
26 August 2011 at 12:45 pm
Kill them all …! Kill them all…! hehehehe….
Hmm…you bring up an interesting point, point being whether the torture is justifiable and in this case through a direct order. I for one have never been in a situation, where I had to follow orders…other than my own parents or at boarding school of course, where the occasional order that I did receive mainly involved punishment inflicted upon me (felt like torture, at the time)
No, I don’t think I would have the intestinal fortitude to torture another just for the sake of following orders but I think I could be inclined to pick up a cattle prod and give a couple of zaps to someone that was inflicting cruel and brutal punishment on a dog or other animal, for example.
A sub human like Bundy or many like him that willfully prey upon the weak, sort of like fighting fire with fire or giving them a taste of their own medicine.
Interesting that you suggest hanging and also interesting that you suggest that it be only Bush/Cheney et al, that should pay. Torture has probably been a part of every Political administration since the beginning of time. It certainly would be much easier to put together a list of heads of State that were NOT ‘in some way’ responsible for torture than a list of one’s that were.
I could be wrong but looking back on historical records it is in my opinion that when one country or a group of countries defeats the other, the next step is assure yourself of not being victim of vengeance and therefore kill all the top ranks and indoctrinate the common soldier/folk into the new fold.
Atrocities committed in the case of the Nuremberg trials, well burn em all I say but surely you understand, that orders given by Hitler and not followed, basically meant a death sentence as in the case of Rommel who was assassinated for not following his orders. The Nuremberg trials is not an example of following just orders, it was an excuse used by many of the defendants but that excuse is used by all the defeated that are on trial.
Your comments above pleasantly remind me (chuckling) of one of histories great quotes:
Kill them all…Kill them all…”They should all hang” (chuckled at that one…)
Kill them all, the Lord will recognize His own.” So are you suggesting to put all in the Agency to “..65 years of hard labor…” and that universal karma (since your an agnostic) will work it all out ….are all people in the agency bad or just the one’s that have known or have participated…oh forget it…it’s all of them since they all know and therefore they are all guilty by association …right ?
In 1209, during the “Albigensian Crusade” against the Cathar heresy in Southern France, the forces of Orthodox Catholicism had been besieging the city of Beziers, defended by the Cathar heretics, for some time. Finally they breached the walls of the city and prepared to storm it. The commander of the crusade, Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, pointed out that not everybody in the city was a heretic, some of them were good Catholics, so how should they treat the inhabitants when they captured the city? A monk who was actually present at the siege recorded the answer of the Papal Legate to the Crusaders, Arnaud-Amaury, the Abbot of Citeaux, as “Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet.” (“Kill them all. God will know his own.” ) So the Crusaders followed his advice and killed everybody they could find in Beziers.
: : : : : : : : : The Abbot presumably said it in everyday French, and the account we have is in Latin, but there seems no reason to doubt that he really did give that advice..” http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/42/messages/1096.html
Nick
26 August 2011 at 3:59 pm
The point I’m making is simple, and I think you get it: No one given the order to torture a person can escape responsibility by saying that s/he was “following orders.” That does not cut it: the Nuremberg Trials established that.
The rest I’m not sure I follow, but from the information we have it is clear that member of the CIA are responsible for the deaths of persons being interrogated under torture. These persons are guilty, as is the entire chain of command from the person authorizing such actions, which in this case would be George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
I’m assuming you agree. The Nuremberg trials are quite clear, and the US took a very strong position there. Moreover, the US has signed and ratified the Convention Against Torture, which makes some of the same points. Ronald Reagan was the president who signed it, so the GOP certainly should have no problem with it.
LeisureGuy
26 August 2011 at 4:11 pm
My position actually is quite irrelevant as it is full of inconsistencies and open to argument and more than likely ridicule but if I must define it, I would say that it would be along the lines of:
In my opinion we are in the midst of a cultural and religion based world war coupled with the complications generated by centuries of oppression generated by the ‘Have’s’ upon the ‘Have not’s. (For examples, one only needs to look at the Middle-East). I think you would agree that in almost all wars, atrocities have and will continue to be committed. Hutu massacre over the Tutsi, The Serb over the Muslim, the Turks over the Armenians, there too many examples to count, here, really.
I am often puzzled by the “what came first, the chicken or the egg” analogy when discussing the oppressed rising up against the oppressor. You have commented on numerous occasions – please correct me if I am wrong – that if it were not for our (being the USA) blatant, cruel and inhumane approach to empire/nation building, oppressing villagers and bombing innocents to oblivion then if it were not for that, they would be showering rose petals at our feet as we visited their countries as tourists. That because of our methods we have occurred the scorn of all and this is why their young grow up to be our enemies.
Well what started it all anyway ? The chicken or the Egg. When you have a bunch of radical Imams in their Madras’s hell bent on our destruction what do you expect the USA to do ? Apologize for all the wrongs they are preaching that we have committed ? Hey, let’s let bygone’s be bygones, let’s all man up and be brothers with hugs and kisses and move on right ? Well, the president tried that and the only hugs and kisses the Administration got was from Qaddafi hell bent on making Condoleezza his number 10th wife.
So there seems to be a war going on, who started it ? did the seven sisters begin it all or was it later when we started to divvy up the middle east and put puppets in power ? Did the resurgence of religion in the middle east begin it ? By targeting uncle Sam as the evil Infidel dog ?
The only thing I know as it is plainly obvious is that we are definitely in a dog fight, Radical Islam is hell bent on our destruction and they want to take over the west without a doubt and the West and the Christian right is hell bent against that happening so here we are.
You speak of ‘crimes committed’ by an agency that is commandeered by the executive branch of the USA Govt. You deliver information in segments and critique issues based on limited information at hand. it seems to me quite one sided and OK, I can appreciate that, as it’s obviously YOUR opinion of the facts that you have decided to retain and agree with. Have you read about the crimes the other side have committed against their own people and their intelligence services have been responsible for….do you not think a little comparative reasoning might be apt ? A bit of comparison in terms of “well yes we have been bad but they are far worse” type of analogy but no, the fall back will always be the argument that “we cannot be them” or i love the other argument that ” I am not talking about others, i am talking about the USA”
They in that branch truly believe they are heroic in their undertakings and are defending our land of freedom against forces that are determined for our demise. Sure no one is perfect and things tend to get out of hand at times and innocents die but they do their best and I am sure most if not all believe they are protecting us against tyranny and oppression and the like,.
After all, what side of the fence would you have rather been growing up and living on ? Would you have rather been the last 50 years in Russia with the KGB throwing you in jail and torturing you and your family for dissenting or perhaps China during Mao’s cultural revolution, promptly being send to a labor camp for criticizing your country or there in the USA.
You seem to have a nice comfortable life in California, America has been good to you and your family ? Have you been ever to Pakistan or the Middle East, Africa or Asia ? Believe me, in comparison to what you no doubt have and have had it is no wonder some of the Mullahs are pissed off and hell bent on our destruction.
Well this was certainly a lot longer than intended…apologies …
Nick
26 August 2011 at 6:38 pm
Here’s the correction: You are wrong. I never said such a thing, and I never implied such a thing, and I do not believe such a thing. Given that you are stating here your understanding of my position, I think we should stop now. It seems obvious to me that I am unable to communicate to you my position, and thus continuing such an effort would be an exercise in futility.
LeisureGuy
26 August 2011 at 6:58 pm