Just a minute now...

Various news outlets are reporting on the charges against former CIA employee John Kiriakou for leaking to the press and lying to the CIA about his endeavors involving terrorist Abu Zubaydah and the enhanced interrogation issue. He could go to jail for 30 years.  The Obama administration is setting records for charging people with leaking. 

So what's going on here?  Why is F. Patrick Fitzgerald of Libby/Plame fame suddenly back in the news?  Or is this a bona fide leak investigation?

For history go back to ABC News, who had the Kiriakau exclusive in 2007 where he claimed waterboarding was a necessary evil that worked great.  They even hired him as an analyst for awhile.  Not surprisingly ABC doesn't seem giddy about the airing of this laundry but they've been doing some shuffling since April 2009:

Kiriakou now says he too was stunned to learn how often Zubaydah was waterboarded, in what Kiriakou says was clearly torture.

That walk-back was included in another exclusive outing two CIA contractors who allegedly designed the waterboarding program.  Not clear whether one of those 'sources' was Kiriakou.  Ironically the 2009 feature was only a day after Obama first called Bush a torturer.  Weeks earlier he had given immunity to CIA employees involved who followed DoJ orders after the threat of prosecution, while also releasing memos detailing the enhanced procedures to the angst of Dick Cheney.  Holder held on to the investigation through mid 2011 before finally dropping it. 

Meanwhile about a month before the ABC 2009 story aired Kiriakou began working as a staffer with the Senate Foreign Relations Investigation Committee run by Democrat John Kerry.  The CIA's criminal referral was triggered by one of the unnamed journalists allegedly feeding the names of CIA employees involved in the waterboarding to ACLU lawyers working to free the Gitmo terrorists.  That particular flim-flam is receiving very little scorn in the media at the moment.   

And who can believe it--the Obama Justice folks actually had the temerity to investigate those ACLU lawyers for passing the clandestinely received information.  No worries though, we can all rest easier knowing they were cleared of any wrongdoing in passing this information to the various enemy scumballs who would just as soon kill them as the rest of us if they ever get the chance.  Focus is on the leaker.

And Kiriakou does seem like a bad guy here, discounting other interpretations. For instance, maybe the Obama gang is doing this to calm the Glenn Greenwald crowd since Kiriakou was initially billed as a defender of waterboarding.  And how about John Friggin Kerry or other Senators on the committee?  Will they be interviewed?  Surely they will say they can't comment, which will be enough for our watchdog press.

At any rate, Holder just announced he would be heralding the grand accomplishments of the Global Contingency Operation over the next few weeks, including rationale for one-offing Awlaki and Awlaki, Jr.  While some are saying bring it on (and it sounds fun) with these guys it's hard to tell what might be up their sleeves. 

Fat Chances

So Blago wants Obama to testify in his Senate-seat auction case? That's about as likely as anyone finding out who destroyed the CIA interrogation tapes (since the latest FOIA release has apparently exonerated the Bush folks).

Hot Rod is an interesting character, though. It's almost as if he's regularly doing and saying outrageous things to keep his profile as high as possible, to the point of becoming a household name. Wonder why he would do that, aside from the fame?

KSM Tried in Manhattan?

As the country remains embroiled in a cowardly debate over race (again) and amidst Pelosi's crocodile tears over our new domestic terrorists, the Gitmo deadline looms ever closer. Remember that? Yesterday the administration asked for yet another delay as they try to get their act together and dropped this trial balloon out the window in the process:

The government’s legal papers said the Justice Department and the Pentagon would decide within 60 days whether to seek criminal charges in federal court against the Sept. 11 defendants, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the accused chief planner, and those accused of being associates, like Ramzi bin al Shibh. If the men are indicted, government officials said, the case is likely to be tried in New York.

Speaking of which, apart from this, we haven't heard much about that Blue Ribbon interagency panel tasked with changing our interrogation policies.

But what about KSM coming to New York? From the sound of the Supermax it appears to be hell compared to Gitmo. Giving them life without martyrdom might not be a bad ending--much worse than death. Khalid would get to see his nephew-in-crime and swap stories with him and Terry Nichols about their former tradecraft. Of course the victims might want to see them all thrown off the Empire State Building on fire. It's an emotional issue to say the least.

Which is why it's prudent to ask whether Obama would really risk bringing them to trial there. What would happen if they go to New York then end up walking due to tainted evidence? It will be an election year (2010) before everything is said and done and he won't be able to blame Bush because Bush never wanted them tried in criminal courts anyway--precisely due to a fear they may walk (among other things).

Exactly how this might tie in with the hush-hush Justice investigation of CIA interrogators seems to have Josh Gerstein puzzled.

MORE 9/17/09

Michael Scheuer was just on O'Reilly and dropped a bomb about what was learned through harsh interrogation that the Obama administration won't reveal--a plot to seed midwestern universities with sleeper agents in prep for the next attack (they are patient). Also, an attack on the UK was revealed along with names. What he did sounded like a crime but he knows they can't go after him because it would bring to light the fact they aren't revealing the CIA department level feedback to the 2004 IG report. Should be interesting.

TRANSCRIPT 9/19/09

I'm still intrigued with Scheuer's spillage of what seems like classified info on O'Reilly Thursday night. It's hard to find a video of this. I did find a transcript of sorts here, of which contains this snippet:

00:13:30 Joining us now from washington, former cia official michael schurr once the head of the bin laden unit and author of the book marching toward hell.
00:13:41 Doctor, I understand you have new information for us tonight.
00:13:43 What is that?
00:13:45 Well, bill, I wanted to try to explain to the american people a little bit about the interrogation program and what we found in it or what resulted from it.
00:13:54 For example, after the interrogations of can a lead sheik mohammed, we were able to stop an al qaeda plan that was already in process to enroll its fighters in midwestern u.s.
00:14:10 Universities in order to prepare for the next round of attacks in the united states.
00:14:13 And in addition, after talking to khalid sheik mohammed and zubaydah.
00:14:22 We were able to stop an attack inside the united kingdom led by another gentleman.
00:14:29 I think those are important for america to know.
00:14:33 why hasn't that information been forth coming?
00:14:35 Because you have the attorney general holder saying ok, look, I'm going to set up a panel and look at the cia guys who waterboarded zubaydah and khalid sheik mohammed.
00:14:46 We are going to do that and rattle their cage at the cia.
00:14:48 We are going to give them a hard time.
00:14:51 And no -- americans don't know what you just said, that a midwestern plot was foiled.
00:14:57 A u.k. plot was foiled.
00:14:59 Why don't we know that?
00:15:00 >> We don't know that, sir, because the president and holder and the white house generally have been lying to the american people directly about the success of the interrogation program.

As the man who oversaw rendition during the 90s as the chief of the bin Laden Unit at Langley he definitely has a legacy to protect and could even get caught up in a broadened investigation down the line, but even still, this should have made bigger news. Maybe the commentators on the Sunday shows will ask Obama about it.

Going Fishing?

Firedog Marcie Wheeler, who has seemingly devoted the rest of her life to bringing down the Bush administration ex post facto, is living vicariously through the new CIA investigation that's quietly being led by John Durham. Ms. Wheeler seems excited at this tidbit gleaned from a recent interview of Colin Powell's former chief of staff Larry Wilkerson:

No. My wife thinks that ultimately there’s going to be something. I’m a little more cynical than she, but she’s convinced that this investigation that’s been going on [by John Durham] — very low-key, the guy’s very persistent, he’s very determined, he reminds me of [Patrick] Fitzgerald on the Valerie Plame case, and his starting point is the destruction of the videotapes, and I’m told he’s got a plan, and he’s following that plan, and I’m told that plan is bigger than I think. [my emphasis]

Bigger than he thinks, eh? Ole Honest Obe told everyone it would be very narrow when he spoke through Holder's press release.

Matter of fact, so narrow that Ms. Wheeler herself and others figured it would be a pointless exercise, which in hindsight was not very reality-based based on Fitzgerald's actions in the Libby caper and the truthiness emitting from 1600 to date. Recapping, the situation has morphed from "looking forward, not back" to "only a narrow investigation" to potential sugar plum fairy frogmarch land. There's always hope.

The bigger news from the Wilkerson interview was his characterization of dastardly Dick Cheney as 'just now crazy'. As if the old boy has only recently flipped but was lucid while fighting dirty with the terrorists (man-causers; Islamic; not right wing domestic variety). Well, at least he can get sympathy and treatment if he's crazy, and of course won't be responsible for his actions. Back when he was an evil genius or just evil he had no hope at all.

But this rhetoric is funny coming from a man who recently produced some scoff-worthy material himself, losing his timeline on the Rachel Maddow show during an attempt to paint crazy Darth as so diabolically twisted that he would expect Sheik al-Libi to admit under water torture that Saddam was a bloody-thirsty murderer who had extensive links to terrorism and hated America. As if! But in the Colonel's way of thinking, just a bunch of chickenhawks:

"One day," says Powell's former chief of staff Larry Wilkerson, "we were walking into his office and Rich turned to me and said, 'Larry, these guys never heard a bullet go by their ears in anger ... None of them ever served. They're a bunch of jerks'."

Hope nobody tells him about Biden and all his deferments. By the way, some may consider it jerky to say something like this in 2008 in an interview in Foreign Policy:

FP: What’s your take on the tone of the campaign?

LW: I was fully expecting the grand wizard of the Klu Klux Klan to arrive from Maryland and endorse McCain. I was becoming frightened that we were returning to 1968, when they assassinated Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. Those were bad times.

Bottom line, he's a Powell supporter, was on the other side of the internecine Bush war, became an Obama booster, and hates Cheney, Rove and crew just the rest of liberal land despite guys like Van Jones. Some may call that crazy.

But this next bit might be more interesting. In the same interview Wilkerson, responding to a hypothetical, elucidated a vision of how a good presidency might progress from day one:

LW: That’s an easy question to answer, but hard to do. On Inauguration Day in my inauguration speech, I would do two things: I would ban torture and I would direct the closure of Guantánamo. And then I would do other things in the first 100 days: I would take a look at negotiations with Iran and at the six-party talks with [North] Korea. I would take a look at U.S.-Cuba relations. Those are actions that would indicate that America is back.

All those things have occurred just as he outlined. Let's see, might someone have been listening (or talking, such as Colin Powell)? And are we back yet?

More on Zubaydah

Various blogs are ruminating on the timeline of the Zubaydah waterboard in relation to the thwarted Los Angeles attack. On the surface it does appear they claimed KSM's enhanced interrogation in 2003 broke up a plot on the Library Tower in 2002.

So, being bored and at the same time flummoxed by the slow motion trainwreck this represents for America, I ventured back in the archives here to see whether I'd ever scribbled anything profound about the Zubaydah thing. I didn't find anything. But I did find this:

Actually, reports were that Zubaydah had multiple personalities and was essentially crazy. Others disagreed strongly, especially Tenet, who mentions that Ressam the millennium bomber told them before 9/11 that Abu was going to attack America, which was supposedly briefed to Rice in summer 2001.

Of course, Ressam's name brings to mind Sandy Berger and whatever it was he was trying to redact from the National Archives. Recall it was something to do with the Millennium After Action Report. Many possibilities, in other words.

Berger risked his career stuffing those docs in his socks yet the answer to why he'd take the chance has never been forthcoming and the Bush Justice Dept never seemed very interested in justice. Ah yes we were told--he was just a lone wolf bumbler.

Anyway, Zubaydah was also involved with the various players attending the famed Kuala Lumpur terror summit in 2000, including Yazit Sufaat, a microbiologist supposedly studying bioweapons for al Qaeda, and the notorious Hambali. Perhaps the CIA interrogators grilling Abu in 2002 were trying to pull something out of him in that general area and weren't getting anywhere with the conventional, so they wanted to go with plan B. Recall the Bybee memo said the CIA "knew" he was withholding information. Cheney also mentioned the anthrax letter attacks as one of the mitigating factors on the Hannity interview Monday. And from CBS News in 2003:

Hambali, as al Qaeda's main connection in the Far East, was apparently trying to open an Al Qaeda bio-weapons branch plant.

According to the interrogation documents, Hambali told his U.S. interrogators he had been "working on an Al Qaeda Anthrax program in Kandahar," Afghanistan.

There he worked with a man named Yazid Sufaat, a fellow member of the al Qaeda affiliated terror group Jemaah Islamiyah. Sufaat had received a degree in chemistry and laboratory science from California State University in Sacramento.

But in October 2001, when things became too hot during the U.S. bombing campaign of Afghanistan, Hambali and Sufaat fled to safety in neighboring Pakistan. There again according to the interrogation reports, the two men discussed "continuing the anthrax program in Indonesia".

But I continue to be intrigued that Gerald Posner got the following quote for his book published in 2003:

To the surprise of the CIA team watching the event unfold live on video, Zubaydah said that 9/11 changed nothing because both Prince Ahmed and Mir knew beforehand that an attack was scheduled for American soil that day. They just didn't know what it would be, nor did they want to know more than that. The information had been passed to them, said Zubaydah, because bin Laden knew they could not stop it without knowing the specifics, but later they would be hard-pressed to turn on him if he could disclose their foreknowledge.

Hmm. Bring on the hearings?

Tale of the tapes, part 2

Both Instapundit and Hot Air are suggesting that Ted Kennedy owes someone an apology for his comments about the CIA interrogation tapes that were destroyed. But just one minute, says Just One Minute:

DoJ lawyers involved in the Moussai trial told a judge they had watched videotape of CIA interogations in 2007.

Follow the links at that site for a DoJ letter to Zacarias Moussaoui judge Brinkema explaining that the tapes THEY are talking about, destroyed in 2007, would not have changed the verdict. Just how many tapes are there?

The letter redacts which terror suspects those tapes contained, which might be crucial. In searching around on the tubes to ascertain the direction Moussaoui's lawyers pointed their discovery, we find this comment just a few days ago (emphasis added):

Gerald Zerkin, one of Moussaoui's lawyers in the penalty phase of his trial, recalled some of the defense efforts to obtain testimony from video or audio tapes of the interrogations of top al-Qaida detainees. "Obviously the important witnesses included Zubaydah, Binalshibh and KSM (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed)... those are the guys at the head of the witness list," Zerkin said. He could not recall specifically which tapes he requested or the phrasing of his discovery requests, which he said were probably still classified.

So many foggy memories out there! Whoever it was, the public ended up with a substitution for testimony, which at the time was the first we'd heard from any of them about anything. Maybe it should have been called substitution for tapes soon to be destroyed. Bottom line, there still appears to be a tape problem.

Bottom bottom line--all of this must be balanced within the context of Debra Burlingame's testimony, because much of the legal wrangling we're seeing could be in response to a concerted effort by the enemy to subvert the courts against us. Remember Moussaoui's famous quote: "it's permitted to lie for jihad".

MORE 12/12/07

Moussaoui unvarnished. Context is everything.

ONE MORE 12/12/07

The buzz from the destroyed tapes continues, as evidenced by this report, which features a lawyer for one of the combatants. But as the Moussaoui testimony above alludes, these detainees are at war with the US. Aside from the bizarro notion of such people even having attorneys at all, the demand for discovery of things such as interrogation tapes that undoubtedly contain sensitive national security information (harmful if leaked) is the very reason Bush did not want enemy combantants brought into the US courts system.

It's been a long time since 9/11, and people have forgotten why those Congresspeople once asked CIA if they were doing enough.