For the past two decades, the Washington Post’s
David Ignatius has been the mainstream media’s
most active apologist for the transgressions
of the Central Intelligence Agency. Ignatius
reached a new low last month, when he used two
oped columns to trivialize the CIA’s use
of torture and abuse against detainees (merely
“kicks, threats, and other abuse”)
and to dismiss the need for an investigation
of the CIA’s illegal assassination program
against suspected terrorists (“nobody
had been killed”).
In both cases, Ignatius relied on high-level
sources from the CIA’s National Clandestine
Service to make the best possible case for the
Agency. This is neither good reporting nor professional
journalism. [See Mr. Goodman's previous columns
on David Ignatius' defense of CIA misdeeds here
and here.]
Thanks to New York Times reporters, particularly
Scott Shane and Mark Mazetti, we are learning
more about CIA’s illegal assassination
program. Ignatius and the Washington Post either
failed to investigate the issue or simply dismissed
it based on assurances provided by those at
CIA with the most to lose from public exposure.
And on Monday, thanks to the work of Attorney
General Eric Holder, we should receive additional
details of the CIA’s torture program.
Each revelation exposes more about the illegal,
immoral, and counter-productive actions of the
Bush administration and the CIA over the past
eight years. Each revelation demonstrates that
CIA has withheld information and sought to cover-up
its actions. And each revelation speaks to the
need for an accountability investigation that
will restore the credibility of the CIA as well
as the integrity of American democracy.
Ignatius’ focus is trivial, misguided,
and aligned with the perspective of his CIA
sources. His expressed concern is that any congressional
inquiry or the appointment of a special prosecutor
will lead to what he terms “slow rolling”
at the CIA. Slow rolling means that Agency officers
will “go through the motions…pass
cables back and forth; take other jobs outside
the danger zone…cover their backsides.”
They will “keep their heads down. Duck
the assignments that carry political risk. Stay
away from a counterterrorism program that has
become a career hazard.” This is a recurrent
theme, advanced by those seeking to prevent
oversight. And it is arrant nonsense. CIA is
staffed by professionals who want to conduct
their activities in a legal and effective manner.
Both Ignatius and CIA director Panetta have
fallen into a trap, failing to understand that
accountability would actually boost morale at
the CIA. The fact is that previous CIA directors
(George Tenet, Porter Goss, and Michael Hayden)
had to rely on independent contractors to conduct
torture and abuse and to build an assassination
program, because too many professional Agency
officers refused to take part.
The CIA’s Office of Medical Services
(OMS) did not believe that torture and abuse
were either necessary or moral, so Tenet turned
to two military retirees who were looking for
a business opportunity to sell torture and abuse.
The fact that neither man had ever carried out
a real interrogation, had any expertise on al
Qaeda, or had any knowledge of terrorism meant
nothing to CIA officials.
CIA abandoned the worst of its interrogation
techniques in 2004, after CIA’s Office
of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report concluding
that torture and abuse had not thwarted any
“specific imminent attacks” and
OMS advised that the risk to the health of the
prisoners outweighed any potential intelligence
benefit. Actually, FBI officials and military
analysts previously had concluded that torture
was “less reliable” than traditional
psychological methods, and had warned that it
would lead to an intolerable political and public
backlash.
The additional fact that CIA had no way of
determining which detainees had useful information
and which had none almost certainly led to the
abuse of low-level or even innocent people.
Some or many of these detainees probably provided
false “confessions” in an effort
to stop the torment.
There is now ample public evidence about the
CIA’s renditions, detentions, and interrogations
program, but there remains much that is unknown.
The job of a serious journalist is to pursue
the unknown and shed light on areas of possible
wrongdoing. A serious journalist would be trying
to learn what was on the 100 hours of torture
tapes that CIA operations officers destroyed.
A serious journalist would not rely on sources
whose clear agenda is the cover up of their
own, possibly illegal, actions.
We would be better off as a nation if journalists
such as David Ignatius and congressional leaders
such as Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) stopped
aiding and abetting CIA’s efforts to cover
up its past actions and began to press for genuine
reform of the institution. CIA necessarily operates
on the edge of the law and in secrecy; it therefore
requires strong, constant, and effective oversight
from the congress and the press if it is to
remain within legal bounds.
Thus far, the nation has benefited from the
lawsuits of the American Civil Liberties Union,
which have forced the release of government
torture documents and the CIA’s IG report
from 2004 detailing techniques that violated
the Justice Department’s requirements.
It has also benefitted from reporting by the
New York Times and Warren Stroebel of the McClatchy
Newspapers and from the investigation by the
OIG. At the very least, Senator Feinstein should
make sure that the White House and the CIA appoint
another statutory inspector general at the CIA
to replace John Helgerson, who announced his
retirement more than six months ago. After all,
our only comprehensive study on torture and
abuse was produced under Helgerson’s leadership
five years ago.
Ignatius warns repeatedly that the “sunlight
of exposure” will blind our shadow warriors.”
The reverse is true. The “sunlight of
exposure” will restore the effectiveness
of CIA’s “shadow warriors”
by providing them a clear understanding of the
parameters within which they can operate legally.
CIA’s “shadow warriors” are
both professional and patriotic; they seek to
serve their country by protecting the principles
on which it is founded—not by flouting
them.
Investigation, public exposure, and accountability
will ensure that the activities that have created
more terrorists have ended. They also will restore
the credibility of our intelligence services,
permit foreign intelligence agencies to cooperative
effectively with the CIA, and reverse the damage
that has been done to U.S. foreign and national
security policy.
Melvin A. Goodman, a senior fellow at the
Center for International Policy and adjunct
professor of government at Johns Hopkins University,
is The Public Record’s National Security
and Intelligence columnist. He spent 42 years
with the CIA, the National War College, and
the U.S. Army. His latest book is Failure of
Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA.
Copyright 2009 The Public
Record
