Dear Friends,
The saying that the cover-up can be worse than the crime is very often true. In the case of the torture and rendition policies of the United States under President Bush, it is hard to imagine that the cover-up could be worse than the horrific immoral and illegal activities that were conducted in our name by President Bush. For reasons that defy all logic and understanding President Obama has refused to take any action to hold President Bush and members of his administration accountable for their actions. At first, President Obama's inaction seemed like just another example of his unwillingness to confront Republicans because he thought he could get their support for some of the things he wanted to accomplish. If there were ever any doubt that this approach was foolhardy, those doubts have been thoroughly erased by now.
Unfortunately, it now appears that President Obama has not only failed to hold members of the Bush administration accountable for their illegal acts, but he is at the least condoning an ongoing cover-up of the CIA torture and rendition activities and at worst is participating in that cover-up. Before addressing the current cover-up by the CIA. I want to remind you of the destruction of the torture tapes by the CIA. Here is a quote from an article in
The New York Times on March 2, 2009 by Mark Mazzetti (
here)
WASHINGTON — The government on Monday revealed for the first time the extent of the destruction of videotapes in 2005 by the Central Intelligence Agency, saying that agency officers destroyed 92 videotapes documenting the harsh interrogations of two Qaeda suspects in C.I.A. detention.
The arrogance and audacity of the CIA in illegally destroying evidence of torture caused quite a stir when it happened. If you have forgotten I would recommend an article by Glen Greenwald in
The Guardian (
here) entitled appropriately "The CIA's impunity on torture tapes". Mr. Greenwald discusses an op-ed piece written by Lee Hamilton and Tom Kean, the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission in
The New York Times. Mr. Greenwald says it all better than I could.
What triggered this duo's uncharacteristic accusatory outburst was the revelation that the CIA had purposely destroyed numerous videos of interrogation sessions it had conducted with al-Qaida operatives (destroyed were 92 videos, showing hundreds of hours of interrogations). The 9/11 Commission had repeatedly demanded, with the force of law behind it, that all such interrogation materials be provided to it. Numerous courts presiding over lawsuits relating to torture allegations against the CIA had also ordered that any such videos be produced.
But with those orders pending, the CIA destroyed the very evidence it was legally compelled to preserve. With at least the knowledge, if not direction, of White House officials, they did so almost certainly with the intent of preventing the world from seeing how they treated detainees in their custody – with torture – but the effect was to prevent the 9/11 Commission and multiple courts from learning what al-Qaida operatives said (or did not say) about 9/11 and other matters under investigation.
That is why the CIA's actions were so clearly criminal: destroying evidence one knows is relevant to a lawful investigation or a judicial proceeding is the very essence of "obstruction of justice". Individuals are routinely prosecuted and imprisoned in the US for such acts in far less serious cases. So egregious and deliberate was the CIA's criminality – purposely destroying evidence relevant to the most significant terrorist attack in history on US soil – that not even Hamilton and Kean were willing to paper over it.
Despite all that, there have been no legal consequences whatsoever for the crimes of these CIA officials. Last November, the Obama justice department – following the administration's all-too-familiar pattern of shielding Bush-era crimes from acountability – announced it was closing its criminal investigation into the matter with no charges filed. And this week, a federal judge, whose own order to produce these videos had been violated by the CIA, decided that he would not even impose civil sanctions or issue a finding of contempt because, as he put it, new rules issued by the CIA "should lead to greater accountability within the agency and prevent another episode like the videotapes' destruction".
So with this history in mind, consider the current conflict between President Obama's CIA and the Senate. Many reporters and commentators refer to the current dispute as one between Senator Feinstein (D. CA.) and the CIA. That characterization is encouraged by President Obama who claims it would be inappropriate for him to get involved in a dispute between them. President Obama (remember, he is the Constitutional Law professor) seems to have forgotten that he is the head of the Executive Branch of the United States government. The CIA is part of the Executive Branch and hence reports to President Obama. In fact, John Brennan the Director to the CIA was appointed by President Obama. On the other side is the Legislative Branch of the Untied States government in this case represented by Senator Feinstein as the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the committee charged with oversight of the CIA. So this is a dispute between the Executive Branch of the government lead by President Obama and the legislative branch in its efforts (feeble as they often are) to oversee the operations of the CIA. President Obama does not have the right to sit on the sidelines. He is the leader of the Executive Branch.
The New York Times editorial board has summarized the situation very well in its editorial a couple of days ago entitled "The C.I.A. Torture Cover-Up" (
here). I urge you to read it. In case you do not read the full editorial, below are the first and last paragraphs of the editorial which contain a good summary (but the stuff in between is great too).
It was outrageous enough when two successive presidents papered over the Central Intelligence Agency’s history of illegal detention, rendition, torture and fruitless harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects. Now the leader of the Senate intelligence committee, Dianne Feinstein, has provided stark and convincing evidence that the C.I.A. may have committed crimes to prevent the exposure of interrogations that she said were “far different and far more harsh” than anything the agency had described to Congress.
The lingering fog about the C.I.A. detentions is a result of Mr. Obama’s decision when he took office to conduct no investigation of them. We can only hope he knows that when he has lost Dianne Feinstein, he has no choice but to act in favor of disclosure and accountability.
President Obama would like us to believe that he is cooperating with the Senate Intelligence Committee and that he is a neutral observer in a dispute between the CIA and Senator Feinstein. Unfortunately, President Obama's public stance on the issue is completely contradicted by the actions that he and the White House staff are taking. On March 12, the website McClatchyDC published a report by Jonathan Landay, Ali Watkins and Marisa Taylor entitled, "White House withholds thousands of documents from Senate CIA probe, despite vows of help" (
here). The first paragraph reads as follows:
The White House has been withholding for five years more than 9,000 top-secret documents sought by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for its investigation into the now-defunct CIA detention and interrogation program, even though President Barack Obama hasn’t exercised a claim of executive privilege.
The complete disregard for human and civil rights exhibited by President Bush and his administration has been roundly criticized including by President Obama. Unfortunately, the lesson to be learned is that if you are a high government official you can violate the human rights of others who are not powerful and you can engage in illegal activities to cover-up what you have done, but you will never be held accountable for your actions. President Obama should be teaching a better lesson to the American people and to the world.
Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/12/221033/despite-vows-of-help-white-house.html#storylink=cpy
