impeachment toolkit - TORTURE, the CIA, the New York Times and WAR CRIMES, part 1

It's been called to my attention that the "Director of Public Affairs" (????) of the Central Intelligence Agency, Mark Mansfield, has written the following letter to the New York Times -- and in just a few words has exposed The Agency (The Company, as some refer to it, who are in the know ...) and its policy towards WAR CRIMES .. Here is the letter:

To the Editor [of the New York Times]:

Your Dec. 31 editorial “Looking at America” does a great disservice to the men and women of the C.I.A. You describe the lawful questioning of hardened terrorists as “sickening behavior.” The interrogation methods the C.I.A. has employed over the years have been closely reviewed by lawyers and others in the executive branch, and they have been briefed to our oversight committees in Congress. That is a fact.

It is absurd to suggest that the C.I.A. has an interest in any process that would produce bad intelligence. To dismiss as “barbaric acts” a small, carefully run effort that has disrupted terrorist plots and saved innocent lives — and done so in accord with the law — is wrong and unfair.

The officers of the C.I.A. who put their lives on the line to gather intelligence on the terrorist threat — and are as committed as anyone to protecting American ideals — deserve better.

Mark Mansfield

Director of Public Affairs

Central Intelligence Agency

McLean, Va., Jan. 3, 2008

Mr first reaction upon reading it was this - it reminded me of a Big Nixonian type of WHINE.

Then I noticed that the PROJECTION in it is almost laughable. They are the ones being mistreated? I hardly think so!! But this is a repetitious pattern with Bushistas and Straussites (MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!!) But when I contemplate this letter, and confer with my "legal adviser" certain things about it deserve some right good "nitpicking" - and the legal charade it attempts to present as "gospel" and "edict" should be exposed, word after bloody word, thought after sickening thought. I don't pretend my observations are all mine - I had plenty of help here. But perhaps the reader will stick this through and see the inconsistentancies and legal hole they put themselves in with this "letter to the editor". It was obviously meant for MASS CONSUMPTION.

I could wallpaper all my walls with pictures I have seen of all the torture of living things I have seen the BuZh administration. The imperial presidency, commandeered by a lot of power crazied zealots, has gotten itself up to many unsavory things during the past seven years. But I don't need to do place posters and etching on the walls; the images stay permanently etched in my mind's eye .. you know, that place we all inhabit that isn't material, but is the picture gallery our souls create. When I read what a person writes I am always looking for a visual clue to see if they "get" the mental picture of what they are writing about, or are they just into rationalization or mind games ...

The Department of Justice, the State Department, the Department of Defense, certainly the White House .. and that indefinable Fourth Branch of government that is comprised of Dick Cheney and his two gigantic walk-in Mosler safes whihc employees a staff of science fiction writers have all been totally devoid of real substantive humanity is seeing the soulless world they would like us to "inhabit".

Now it's the CIA ..

This obviously is the intent of the letter - to drag us all into the "land of the dead" or the land of the "willful" and above the law.

We are to inhabit the Land of the Legally Unaccountable with them. Only I'm not going there. I happen to know that assaults and torture on other individuals is illegal.

With a bit of deconstruction, their craziness CAN be done, if we pick apart the serious lack of depth in their ridiculous mental posturings and constructs.

So, thanks to my EXPERT LEGAL HELP I am going to deconstruct this letter line by line - in hopes that you'll stick it out and come to the same conclusion I have: These bloody fools must be restored to .. ready for it? ... the RULE OF LAW, the law that they are sworn to uphold because they are too mentally, emotionally and spiritually deficient to see TRUTH themselves.

There are first certain basic assumptions one gets knowing that the CIA has gone to the New York Times to file a COMPLAINT.

One is, that believe people might care to hear them, and

Two, that somehow or other they can SHAME the rest of us into believing their story AFTER they have clearly clearly committed TORTURE in our name, that is the name of We The People .. and created a "most hated nation on earth" reputation for the citizens of America. They seem to forget that We The People pay their salaries. But in unique BuZhista form, they seem to assume that we are here to serve their imperial directives. Well, excuse me, but I am not brain dead YET. I can smell out a motivation and recognize "projection" and a rationalization when I see it.

I have nothing to be ashamed of, and in this particular case, neither does the New York Times. The editors are up to some pretty good questions about the CIA and TORTURE these days .. and the DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE. And for that I rejoice; I've been reading that paper for over 40 years!! and they should be an impeccable guide to lawful behaviour.

First, let's take a look at Mr. Mansfield before I start addressing him directly.

Does anyone reading this remember the STAGED FEMA briefings, particularly as they related to FEMA failures to control the California wildfires - where a publically paid employee got up and read out "pre-planned" questions of a FEMA official, while POSING as a legitimate journalist?? Do you remember the public outcry?

This was such an indication of the low standard of public accountability that federal agencies have fallen into since BuZh took office. You know, that idea that whatever it takes to politicize federal bureaucracies, whatever it takes to justify their actions is perfectly ACCEPTABLE?

At least to their minds, until we "call" them on it.

Now, we see the CIA up to it.

Who'd a thought it would come to THIS, after the CIA itself wrote an outraged letter about the outting of Valerie Plame? I read that myself, and have a mental picture of it, and the signatories I read stored in that memory bank of my SOUL. I looked very carefully at each name (trying, sorry, to figure out how many were Anglo white guys, the truth be told ... )

Yet, NOW, after knowing that the CIA has committed WATERBOARDING, we are to accept the "truth" of the CIA in which they put forward their vantage point, without facing the public and being asked the hard (Helen Thomas-style, thank God for Helen!) questions, we're just to lap up their Geneva accord dodge without a refutation. Now, to that I say ... FOR SHAME!

So, here is rhetorical question No. 1,

Mr. Mansfield,

just how far down have ETHICAL considerations/standards slipped at the CIA??

Or is it just YOU?? Are you a registered member of a public relations association? Do you follow the GUIDELINES?? Or do you serve your political masters, ONLY??

Also, you say in your re: that you are speaking for the entire CIA --

I sincerely doubt THAT. The CIA is no more monolithic (it's not the BORG!!) than any other federal agency. Plenty of CIA employees are HORRIFIED by the torture that was committed in the name of AMERICA, who after all is the legal entity accountable for the CIA's actions. More about that later ...

While you SAY we are looking at interrogation methods, I suggest, Mr. Mansfield, that what you are ACTUALLY doing -- since you never divulge anything about torture methods merely referring to how well run and "small" they are -- is avoiding some very GRAVE LEGAL ISSUES, instead. Grave by the severity of the crimes committed, and grave because of the circumstances in which we all now find ourselves.

While it is not a criminal, per se -- right from the off you are creating an insincerely articulated as well as an incorrect perception you want planted in people's minds ..

This is known as "spin" .. or worse, as PSYOPS, of which you may have done a class or two or a hundred during your time at the CIA.

The perception you are attempting to create is that we are to unquestionably accept YOUR version of events and a massive coverup attempt by the CIA. Perhaps you have come to feel that if you bat these ideas around enough times, we will come to accept the premise of your argument. But some of us know that there is law involved and are far from forgetting about it.

Unlike me, you have access to a vast army of lawyers and legal opinions; that would be in the nature of your executive job at the CIA .. to act as sincere, competant officer but your letter right from the off indicates you don't know where your directives are coming from. I'll make it simple for you:

The US Constitution - public affairs officers working for the CIA have a duty to upold 5 USC 3331 oath of office requirement to the US Constitution; and are not allowed to disclose false information designed to mislead criminal investigators, in this case war crimes prosecutors.

But Mr. Mansfield, you already know that charges of war crimes have been filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights about WAR CRIMES committed by the United States government. You are definitely trying to mislead the public by your publication of this letter. Your oath of office includes a promise to enforce Geneva. So my second question to you, Sir is:

to what extent have you failed to provide all the facts to show
you are fully doing your job per the Geneva requirements.

I am going to PRESUME that you are not an attorney. This may or may not be the case. But YOUR employment in the CIA does mean that you are bound by LAW.

While you don't "legally" have a "legal duty under the legal profession" to do something this does not mean that you can fail to do what you should as a public affairs person, so I ask you, Mr. Mansfield,

What assurances can you give me that your public statements are not designed for "merely" for public consuption and are not designed to mislead the court, investigators, or public.

While you refer to talking about "lawyers", you seem to avoid the real issue as regards We the PEOPLE, to whom you are ultimately accountable and you commit a more deceitful breach, one that is "self-serving" to the CIA law breakers -- you are avoiding a discussion of the correct issue which is -- what legal standard are we talking about? The fictions created by John Yoo & Co, or the actual law, the legal standard, or the Courts?

Just because an Agency lawyer or some Federalist Society or Bushista lawyer has told you something does not make it TRUE.

So my next questions, Mr. Mansfield, are these:

Have you consulted the history books and looked at the Nuremberg Trials in any detail?

Are you aware that a precedent for prosecuting lawyers who failed to enforce the laws of war exists??

Have you heard of "Justice Trials"??

At this point in time - the time at which you write this arrogant letter, US lawyers have already been alleged to have Made (key word) "frivolous" legal arguments to justify violations of the laws of war; this is important because that alleged frivolous legal argument would attach legal counsel to the underlying war crime. Surely in a serious position such as yours, this would be a prime consideration in your work.

I am more than a bit curious as to WHO you, as a Public Affairs OFFICER, in what is the world's largest intelligence operation, has access to for legal opinion.

Who do you deal with LEGALLY in the Department of Justice and in Congress?

I know of the roles of liaision officers - I dealt with that during my refugee case. (In my case, it was Sheila Foster Anthony - the liason from the DoJ to Congress under Reno in 1994, or so it is PRESUMED .. I got some rather different information about that this past year when doing some snooping.) In my case, this became necessary as the DoJ denied me the right to legal remedies of any kind, and thus the case was brought there. A court of law RULED, fairly, in 1997, that indeed the Solicitor General could not be relied on to whom I could make appeal, and the Europa World Book stated that distinctly. Therefore, the legal opinion of the Congressional Liasion was relied on. I would assume you are able to make these types of distinctions yourself/yourselves .. and go for the best legal counsel.

One would PRESUME that with techniques like waterboarding, clearly outside the rules of war, some would bring this from the CIA to the attention of the major legal authorities on Geneva, as the United States is a signatory and bound to follow the rule of LAW, no matter what the CIA may or may not like about the provisions until such time as Congress invalidates the treaties.

So, I ask you Mr. Mansfield,

who were these "legal authorities"?

from which branch of government did they hail??

and were they the APPROPRIATE legal authority for the
oversight of the CIA??

You see, Mr. Mansfield, with the upshot of the WATERBOARDING - which is CLEARLY an impermissable act -- it seems to me IMPERATIVE that you would bend over backwards to protect the members of the CIA from being subject to legal action being taken against them. It might have made your letter to the New York Times at this late date totally unnecessary.

The CIA wasn't concerned whether their conduct did or did not met the Geneva requirements and you, perhaps -- and the officials and torturers involved -- brought discredit upon your service. The public shouldn't care whether the NYT is "perceived" to do or not do any "service" to the CIA. You've dug yourselves in a hole with your conduct. The New York Times editorial isn't the issue, but the CIA conduct most certainly is. This is precisely what I mean about PROJECTION: rather than face the fact your conduct is shameful and cowardly, you point fingers at everyone else.

You take umbrage that the media has described the (un)lawful questioning of hardened terrorists as “sickening behavior.”

Why do you misconstrue the NYT concerns?

Whether the questioning was "lawful" is spurious; the New York Times is concerned about something more troubling - since the torture is a violation of Geneva, CIA personnel, while required to follow the law, acted ILLEGALLY. It is NOT the sickening behavior they are concerned about at all - but I suspect you know that.

While you are appearing as the public "face" of the Central Intelligence Agency, I hope I can make clear to YOU this: Geneva isn't about protecting prisoners.

No, it is a legitimate LEASH on United States (and other nations') INTERROGATORS. It is a leash and it is legally binding, whether it suits the Agency's fancy or not. It is illegal because waterboarding (and other practices as yet not determined - certain emails and tapes disappeared) is indeed torture and is a violation of Geneva. CIA personnel are REQUIRED TO FOLLOW the RULES. It does not matter one whit whether the US or other nations enforce them; the CIA must enforce them as necessary.

As you are aware, being so intune with the law, as you state, there is an Italian court finding that the rendition-kidnapping in Italy was -- determined to be illegal.

The CIA fails to discuss rendition, how the prisoners were captured, or whether the prisoners were or were not lawfully moved prior to their torture. They were not.

Have you read the Italian court findings?

Did you understand them?

If you did, why are you writing this FRIVOLOUS, and misleading letter to the New York Times??

You state:

"The interrogation methods the C.I.A. has employed over the years have been closely reviewed by lawyers and others in the executive branch, and they have been briefed to our oversight committees in Congress. That is a fact."

This is the most curious allegation of the lot. You, Mr. Mansfield, show your true colors. You are not stating that these actions were lawful, rather you report that "someone else" said it was lawful. Your pretense that saying "this is a fact" is meant for us to be suckers for the thought that "it is lawful what was going on."

But thinking something is lawful does not MAKE it lawful.

What a lawyer says doesn't make it legal.

To be operating within the LAW, you must ensure that the law is met and the CIA had those standards. If there was any doubt, the clear alternative would have been to open up these troubling issues to a comprehensive legal review!

WATERBOARDING, in particular, is outside GENEVA.

Why not get the broadest possible legal understanding to ensure safety not just for "terrorists" but in the interests of the agency, the interrogators, and the United States public.

I'll say it plainly, unlawyerly - violations of Geneva set up the citizenry for attack, reprisals and revenge. Chalmers Johnson refers to it as "blowback". I refer to it as "normal behavior" given the circumstances. Better safe than sorry. The United States "sets itself up" for attack by violating the rules of war. Is it now the "policy" of the Central Intelligence Agency to make the United States population terrified of a nuclear war day after day? Has politicization gone this far?

The Agency has avoided a legal review and does not permit court review. Surely, if the CIA through this treatment was "lawful" they would demand judicial review, not destroy the tapes needed for that review.

Mr. Mansfield,
can your mind fully conceive the untenable position
the CIA has placed America in,
a nation subscribed to standards of behavior
written into an international instrument(s)
written to protect those who signed it
and the future generations which followed ??

Can you see that by avoiding "documentation"
of the violations, you have set in motion
a series of potentially disastrous events??

We have no tape - and those tapes are the PUBLIC'S property. There is no basis to conclude the CIA lawyers were making credible legal assertions. What you ALLEGE is of no concern at all.

Also, just because something is "reviewed" by Congress doesn't mean Congress was fully informed; or that the CIA briefing met the statutory requirement; or that the CIA conduct was meeting the legal requirements under Geneva.

Telling Congress something is going on is not the same as proving to court that the prisoners were or were not treated per the Geneva requirements. They were not, as evidenced by Addington's concern about moving prisoners -- if we moved them, it would implicitly mean the original treatment was not lawful. Perhaps, Mr. Mansfield, in your job capacity, you don't understand Congressional oversight, nor checks and balances .. but your CIA manual surely points out that following Geneva is absolutely right and necessary.

Further, it is non-sense to believe that the "legal review" means anything; or that the lawyers are willing to stand by those legal arguments. The recent Office of Vice President destruction of e-mails hardly meets that standard. The public is watching. The public is alarmed, Mr. Mansfield ..

Do you understand why the public is ALARMED??

You state:

"It is absurd to suggest that the C.I.A. has an interest in any process that would produce bad intelligence."

You do not explicitly deny that there was torture you merely refer to an irrelevant issue.

This is a sleight of hand: by shifting attention from Geneva standards, and focusing on the "accuracy" of the information you were divert us from noticing what is happening.

Torture, including exposing people to cold temperatures, means that the information is not reliable: interrogators cannot tell whether the prisoner is shaking because they are cold; or because they are lying. Let's TRY, shall we, Mr. Mansfield, to get involved in the imaginative process here. What can be obtained when it is impossible, literally, impossible to understand the person undergoing torture, especially when MULTIPLE forms of torture are going on.

Do you understand the limitations of the human body at all??

The human body is quite delicate - macho myths notwithstanding. The fact is this: when a person is STRESSED, they merely go back to primal behaviours, instinctual behaviors, those which are IMPRINTED. We come into this life with only two fears: fear of falling from heights and fear of loud noises. The rest is IMPRINTED and LEARNED.

Fears produce stress states, not always possible to understand. If one thinks they are going to DIE, in which case, the human being will choose to fight or to flee. The only other alternative to those is to communicate IF one thinks he can be understood. But torture practices precludes any such possibility! There one is master and the other slave - slave to the whims of the torturers. The tortured person is an unwilling participant in a status degradation ritual which he will react to with total fear, terror, horror and dread. To find coping strategies to survive while facing down the CIA torturers, while trying to stay alive - will not produce ANYTHING approaching reliable information!!

How do I know? I was locked in a room with DoJ employees for four and one half hours one day back in 1994 .. an experience never to be forgotten (in fact, I have ALL 17 symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder as a result .. permanently). And I can tell you, if you have imagination failure that, unequivocably, to protect my children by staying alive, I would have said or done just about anything someone told me to do until I felt SAFE. Nothing I did was the least bit reliable since my mind just could not process the terror. There was no one watching, no one following the LAW - I had already been assaulted when I realized I could be killed and it would all be covered up. It simply could not deal with the moment and my body betrayed me totally at the time (and still does with the right stimulous, like looking at torture photographs!)

I note in your letter that you want to shift the issue from "Geneva" to whether the "process" was or wasn't bad. Just for your information: it's all bad - that's why we have Geneva to rely on in an international arena for clear and lawful guidance.

There is NO WAY that CIA interrogation techniques (TORTURE) is going to produce a good result - I am a pro on this. I KNOW. And I'll also say this; torturers, those that would torture, are a special breed who do NOT inspire respect, honesty or cooperation from ANYONE, sane or otherwise - sickening or not. And what's worse, they represent a subculture that breeds upon itself, as torture scholars are showing. The practice of torture always becomes a thing unto itself; a form of collective insanity. It should never be "justified" - legal, small or socially accepted by a small class of government cronies inside the Beltway or anywhere else.

Next, in your imitable way, you state:

To dismiss as “barbaric acts” a small, carefully run effort that has disrupted terrorist plots and saved innocent lives — and done so in accord with the law -- that is both wrong and unfair.

You miss the point of Geneva. Let's me be redundant -- it is a leash on the CIA and US.

Asserting that something is "small" or "carefully run" defies reality and borders on the delusional, at best.

There have been many interrogations which are alleged to breach Geneva; and the program is not effectively overseen relative to Geneva. The evidenced is in the tape destruction, OVP email destruction, and hiding prisoners in Eastern Europe/Afghanistan away from the ICRC. Think about it, Mr. Mansfield.

Neither I, nor any thinking person can PROVE that torture "has" disrupted plots; or "saved" innocent lives as you so strategically contend.

Strange, torturing an innocent person is hardly saving them, but abusing them in violation of the laws of war. How the CIA justified the torture of Jose Padillo, a United States citizen is way beyond my ken. How torturing TEENAGERS (Omar Khadr springs to mind) saves lives is way beyond my ability to understand. It is to ask too much for those of us that know, to assume any good whatsoever has come of torturing people who were turned in to the CIA so that some hoodlum/opportunist could collect a $5,000 reward. It was asking for serious trouble and concern to set up such a program. Yet the CIA did just that. Petty grievances between people (and greed), became the impetus to committing the crime of rendition/kidnap against innocent people - human beings who were subsequently TORTURED.

Your statement would ask that we believe torturing "someone else of color" is more acceptable than having someone of Caucasian background because "we all know" "those people" are subhuman. Your implicit assertion is racist but hardly comes as a surprise. We've seen the composition of the population the CIA has chose to TORTURE, kidnap and abuse over a period of years now. Perhaps because The Agency has chosen to deal with a self serving and opportunistic batch of thugs over the years, it has forgotten that saving human lives is its mission??

You assert that this was done according to the law, which is the question -- not a premise -- behind the DoJ investigation into the CIA tape destruction. It is wrong and unfair for the US to pretend it is for freedom while engaging in war crimes!! Your letter engages in a non-sense public relations efforts to change the focus from Geneva to whether or not it "felt good" to torture people. It is illegal.

What part of WAR CRIMES do you not GET?

Only the part that it did not happen to YOU?

WHO was going to ensure it was
"small and well run" ..
another torturer??

The officers of the C.I.A. who put their lives on the line to gather intelligence on the terrorist threat — and are as committed as anyone to protecting American ideals — deserve better.

You seem to be asking that we forgive the CIA for their war crimes -- without a trial, without examining the alleged Geneva violations -- because they are "putting" their lives on the line; never mind those lives The Agency has taken across the line and back with the abuse.

Again, it doesn't matter that the "intelligence gathering process" was occurring; the issue is whether the POWs were or were not treated per Geneva. They were not.

"Committed to protecting American ideals" is pure, unadulterated claptrap, again under the circumstances of your Agency irresponsiblity, hardly surprising.

Can you conceive, for one moment, in your mind,
exactly what an idealistic person who LOVES America would do
if they were to uphold the Constitution --
what living by IDEALS would involve??

"Ideals" includes a legal requirement to abide by all treaties, including Geneva.

It is utterly meaningless to talk about "POWs do not have Constitutional rights" when the US Constitution compels the CIA and US government to fully enforce Geneva.

"Terrorist threat" is non-sense, propaganda devised solely by the BuZh administration to shift attention from the alleged war criminals working for the CIA and its' contractors; and is designed to shift attention from Geneva's leashes to the "images of 9-11", which are not justification for violating the laws of war.

No bombing of buildings, not even an attack on the (sanctified?) Pentagon can "justify" breaking the restraints of Geneva. Not even the deaths of over 3,000 people in a single act of terror can justify the breaking of the rule of law. In fact, viewed properly it is a very strong argument for absolutely ensuring that such violations do not in fact occur; otherwise, barbarism rules. The LAWS and regulations are for The Agency's protection as well - lest you forget.

You seem to be asking us to believe that the CIA agents "deserve better" -- why?

The torturers and breakers of the rule of law
didn't bring credit upon the CIA or the US, did they??

why should the US public, lawyers, or war crimes prosecutors
-- much less the media --
give the CIA officers what the CIA refused to give to the POWs:

Respect.

No, Mr. Mansfield, they are alleged war criminals; and shall be treated according to the law. It's a historical IMPERATIVE, one with precedent at Nuremberg; a destined fate for those who would trifle with and ignore international law.

Let us both but HOPE that no nation attacks the United States during this period while we wait for real justice. It is the CIA's job to ensure that we do not. A good thorough acceptance of legal responsibility is a necessary step.