Former Top Interrogators Back Wide-Ranging Criminal Probe Into Torture

By GottaLaff

(cartoon via, and Jamiol’s World)

My new bff, Jason Leopold, has a terrific post that you can find here. Please read the whole thing. I didn't do it justice (no pun):

Three of the country’s former top counterterrorism interrogators and intelligence experts, are speaking out publicly in support of a wide-ranging criminal investigation into the Bush administration’s use of torture against “war on terror” detainees, and have also urged Congress to launch a separate probe to review how the policies that lead to torture were created.

Jack Cloonan, a former FBI security and counterterrorism expert who was assigned to the agency’s elite Bin Laden Unit, Col. Steve Kleinman, a career military intelligence officer recognized as one of the Defense Department’s most prolific interrogators, and Matthew Alexander, a senior interrogator for a special operations task force in Iraq whose team captured down Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, said ignoring clear-cut evidence of interrogation-related crimes would only lead to further law breaking in the future. Alexander uses a pseudonym for security reasons.

In an interview, Cloonan and Kleinman, both of who conducted interrogations of terror suspects after 9/11, also sharply disputed recent claims by former CIA Director Michael Hayden and Republican lawmakers that a criminal investigation would have a grave impact on intelligence gathering and may lead to another 9/11-type attack on the homeland.

At a panel discussion held at the National Press Club Thursday on outsourcing intelligence, Hayden said an investigation, “no matter how narrowly defined” will “start pulling threads." [...]

“What this is really about is cover your ass,” Cloonan said about the senators’ letter. “To suggest [intelligence gathering] will come to a screeching halt if there were an investigation is not accurate.”

Kleinman, who most recently served as a senior adviser on a Director of National Intelligence-commissioned study on strategic interrogation, agreed.

“I respectfully disagree profoundly with the assessment that any effort to look back would make us more vulnerable, Kleinman said. “In fact, we have to look back to show our utmost vulnerabilities.

“I’ve had the honor of testifying before four committees of Congress and I am always astounded at the profound political partisan politics that surround this issue. I’m a professional interrogator I have 25 years of experience in this and I don’t have any concern whatsoever that an investigation into how we conducted ourselves since 9/11 would in any way undermine our ability to continue gathering intelligence.”

Furthermore, Kleinman and Cloonan believe their colleagues in the intelligence community share their views. But many are unable to speak out publicly. [...]

Kleinman and Cloonan added that the outside contractors and the interrogators who lacked the training and experience are the ones who saw the use of torture as a means to gain valuable information. Moreover, they are likely the ones who fear an investigation.

“The people who are true professionals don’t see anything wrong with an investigation,” Kleinman said. “I conducted interrogations in three separate military campaigns. I can look back if they called me in tomorrow and I would not even be thinking about getting liability insurance.

I simply can't wrap my mind around ignoring crimes like ordering/committing torture and convoluting our legal system in order to justify it, especially after reading Jason's post.

Setting a terrible precedent is just one of the consequences of inaction. The many, many posts I've written (see below) help to explain why I feel so strongly.

******************

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

CIA CYA

By GottaLaff

Via TPM:

A former intelligence professional who has participated in congressional briefings tells TPMmuckraker that the term "enhanced interrogation techniques" or EITs -- which appears throughout those CIA documents about who in Congress was briefed starting in 2002 about which aspects of the Bush torture program -- didn't come in to use until 2006.

It's a crucial point, our Zack Roth reports:

That's not just an issue of semantics. The former intel professional said that by using the term in the recently compiled document, the CIA was being "disingenuous," trying to make it appear that the use of such techniques was part of a "formal and mechanical program." In fact, said the former intel pro, it wasn't until 2006 that -- amid growing concerns about the program among some in the Bush administration -- the EIT program was formalized, and the "enhanced interrogation techniques" were properly defined and given a name.

[...] ...the CIA's effort to cover its aft, an effort that commenced years ago, well before Bush left office.

Alaskan Republican says thanks, but no thanks to Palin's Budget to Nowhere

By GottaLaff

Two Alaskan bloggers are calling Grandma Also out. First, The Mudflats edition:

[Rep. Mike] Hawker, the Republican co-chair of the House Finance Committee wrote a nice little letter to the Governor which basically said, “We got the budget. It’s very pretty. Now, try again.”

Next, Celtic Diva lays it all out for us:

From the ADN Politics Blog:

State House finance co-chair Mike Hawker told Gov. Palin today in a hand delivered letter that she's based her budget on an unrealistically high expectation for state revenue. He wants her to rework the numbers to reflect a possible $2 to $3 billion deficit.

Palin's budget proposal is based on her revenue department's projection that oil will average $74.41 a barrel over the next budget year, which starts in July. "Many, if not most, professional economic analysts believe that the actual average prices will be significantly less than that," Hawker wrote.

I believe that this may be good news for those of us who have been afraid that the Legislature is just going to roll over and die for her.

Republican Representative Hawker is in essence requesting that Palin lay more realistic cards on the table up front, rather than rely on her typical modus operendi...lay back and let the Legislature take the hits for the unpopular decisions while she takes the credit for those choices that are popular with the public. If the fantasy budget she's proposed is allowed to stand unchallenged, she'll simply say that she's "forced" to go along with the tough budget cuts ahead because Alaska's income didn't live up to Revenue's expectations.

That...once again...it's not HER fault...

Of course, this year she has much stronger motivation to follow that tried-and-true formula...the presidential election in 2012. She has quite a tightrope to walk since the national media is watching her every step. While a budget full of red ink would make the fiscal conservatives happy, it would also provide fodder to her critics who would analyze every area she slashed.

Quite the sticky-wicket, wouldn't you say?

So while some are giving her the benefit of the doubt regarding this budget submission, I have NO doubt that it was a calculated CYA move.

Rep. Hawker's letter states it in language that sounds vaguely familiar (emphasis mine):

"No one can accurately predict the future of these markets. However, the consensus of opinion among the best economic minds in the country indicates that basing the state budget for 2010 on $74.41 a barrel is certainly aggressive. I am concerned that it may also be imprudent. It is important the budget process be open and transparent to the Alaska public. Introducing budget bills founded on the unlikely hope of a rapid return to high oil prices is contrary to that principle and inconsistent with a responsible and productive budget dialogue between the branches of government and with the Alaska people."

My interpretation: You are NOT going to make us the bad guy THIS time!

Playing in the big leagues is hard work, isnt' it Grandma Also? Sometimes reveling in that big, bright spotlight can have its downside.

By the way, how's the family?