CIA agents 'refused to operate' at secret jails

[Annie]

CIA agents 'refused to operate' at secret jails
September 20, 2006, MSNBC/Financial Times

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14927851

The Bush administration had to empty its secret prisons and transfer terror suspects to the military-run detention centre at Guantánamo this month in part because CIA interrogators had refused to carry out further interrogations and run the secret facilities. When Mr Bush announced the suspension of the secret prison programme in a speech before the fifth anniversary of the September 11 terror attacks, some analysts thought he was trying to gain political momentum before the November midterm congressional elections. Former CIA officials said Mr Bush's hand was forced because interrogators had refused to continue their work until the legal situation was clarified because they were concerned they could be prosecuted for using illegal techniques. One intelligence source also said the CIA had refused to keep the secret prisons going.
-------------------------------------------
When Mr Bush announced the suspension of the secret prison programme in a speech before the fifth anniversary of the September 11 terror attacks, some analysts thought he was trying to gain political momentum before the November midterm congressional elections.

The administration publicly explained its decision in light of the legal uncertainty surrounding permissible interrogation techniques following the June Supreme Court ruling that all terrorist suspects in detention were entitled to protection under Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions.

But the former CIA officials said Mr Bush's hand was forced because interrogators had refused to continue their work until the legal situation was clarified because they were concerned they could be prosecuted for using illegal techniques. One intelligence source also said the CIA had refused to keep the secret prisons going.

Senior officials and Mr Bush himself have come close to admitting this by saying CIA interrogators sought legal clarity. But no official has confirmed on the record how and when the secret programme actually came to an end.

John Negroponte, director of national intelligence, who was interviewed by Fox News on Sunday, said in response to a question of whether CIA interrogators had refused to work: "I think the way I would answer you in regard to that question is that there's been precious little activity of that kind for a number of months now, and certainly since the Supreme Court decision."

In an interview with the Financial Times, John Bellinger, legal adviser to the state department, went further, saying there had been "very little operational activity" on CIA interrogations since the passage last December of a bill proposed by Senator John McCain outlawing torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners.

Mr Bellinger said the secret prisons remained empty for the moment. But he defended the US position that use of such prisons did not contravene international conventions as some in Europe have argued. He also said that, theoretically, the Pentagon as well as the CIA had the legal right to run such facilities. The CIA declined to comment.

Key figures among the 14 prisoners transferred to Guantánamo, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, had been held in secret centres for three years or more.

Copyright The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved.

[sr4470]

Good, we need more CIA guys with a conscience.

[brian]

sr4470, if only. Sounds more like self interest.

"Former CIA officials said Mr Bush's hand was forced because interrogators had refused to continue their work until the legal situation was clarified because they were concerned they could be prosecuted for using illegal techniques."

[sr4470]

[brian]

sr4470, odd they started caring about the law just at the same time you have them developing a conscience eh.

I think you will find the McCain etc introduction of the no torture rules is what led to the interrogators stance and not any ethical reasons. They were quite happily going along until it became problematic in a personal capacity.

[utopiated]

Does smell a little of a timely PR job and I agree the McCain stance created an atmosphere which 'allowed' this to take place.

Although covert ops type activity obviously goes on unhindered from public scrutiny - all agencies have to boost their image with the public at large - if only to remain under the radar in other areas.

Remember the CIA took the fall for Iraq intelligence failings and I think that many middle rankers in the intelligence agencies in the West are unhappy with their current image.

[Mark Gobell]

That did make me chuckle, torturers with a heart. How lovely.

Worried CIA Officers Buy Legal Insurance

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006 091001286_pf.html

CIA counterterrorism officers have signed up in growing numbers for a government-reimbursed, private insurance plan that would pay their civil judgments and legal expenses if they are sued or charged with criminal wrongdoing, according to current and former intelligence officials and others with knowledge of the program.

The new enrollments reflect heightened anxiety at the CIA that officers may be vulnerable to accusations they were involved in abuse, torture, human rights violations and other misconduct, including wrongdoing related to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. They worry that they will not have Justice Department representation in court or congressional inquiries, the officials said.

[sr4470]

[brian]

There Can Be No Compromise With White House Lawlessness

Upon news of the "compromise" between leading military-connected Senators and the White House on legislation which would regulate the interrogation and trial of so-called terrorists, Lyndon LaRouche insisted that there shouldn't be a bill on this issue at all. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Bush Administration has to abide by the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, LaRouche said, and that spells out what is required in clear language. The only reason Cheney and Bush want a bill is in order to try to again sanction torture and get immunity for their past crimes. There should be no bill at all. ...

Full article - http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2006/3339torture_lawless.html

[sr4470]

If you read the actual bill, it legalises all these nasty things - including secret arrests, trials and executions.

[iro]

For what it's worth i think this move by the CIA agents was a pretext to redefine the enemy combatant within American domestic legislation.

Hence the recent Bill signed by congress that makes anyone not wearing a badge and engaging in anti-government activities a potential terrorist.(even typing on forums if applied to the letter)

These agents will now find no trouble dealing with such prisoners as the legal muddle around their actions is cleared up and they have no legal worries. Even torture for all intensive purposes is legal in the USA now... notice how the story has disappeared?

[ian neal]

[chek]

I believe Pinochet also thought he had covered all the bases too.
The Reps will also find their 'law' not worth the paper it's printed on.