Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Monday, October 24, 2016

By James Rosen, McClatchy Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — The CIA’s former top lawyer disputes Senate findings that the spy agency lied about its brutal interrogations of terrorists, insisting the tactics produced useful intelligence and flatly denying that the CIA misled the Bush administration, Congress and the American public.

At the same time, John Rizzo, who left the CIA as acting general counsel in 2009, said some CIA employees or contractors were overzealous in the use of the tactics but that the CIA informed lawyers at the Justice Department of the excesses.

Rizzo was responsible for helping to create the legal foundation for permitting waterboarding, extreme sleep deprivation and other aggressive methods he says were used on 30 people held at secret “black sites” around the world.

In his first extensive interview since McClatchy published the 20 key findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee report last week, Rizzo strongly denied the panel’s conclusion that the 10 so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, which he acknowledged were brutal, had failed to produce significant intelligence or to prevent more terrorist attacks.

“This program went on for six years,” Rizzo told McClatchy earlier this week. “And I watched daily — every night there was a meeting in those early years at 5 o’clock. It was chaired by the CIA director, George Tenet. And every night, during the course of those briefings, the career CIA analysts and operatives would sit there and recite the information that had been acquired from these detainees. I mean on a daily basis. I’m not an analyst or an operative, but I’m not stupid, and I sat there and listened to this relentlessly.”

Rizzo, who said he hadn’t seen the Senate report but only the published accounts of it, noted that some of the CIA officers and analysts providing updates on the interrogation sessions “were not generally enamored of the Bush administration” and thus weren’t inclined to exaggerate the interrogation program’s effectiveness.

“I was convinced that these techniques were yielding detailed, valuable information into terrorist plots,” Rizzo said. “Now was there ever a ticking time-bomb scenario? I don’t remember a particular (case of): ‘Tomorrow, LAX (airport) is going to blow up,’ but it was incremental and it was steady. And I became convinced just by listening to these career people that the program was yielding very, very valuable benefits.”

Rizzo’s central involvement in crafting the interrogation techniques led Senate Democrats to block his confirmation as CIA general counsel in 2007. He then served as acting general counsel until retiring in October 2009.

Rizzo’s comments mark the first detailed response from a current or former CIA official to the Senate report, which took four years to complete at a taxpayer cost of $40 million.

With Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama claiming to have protected the homeland from follow-on terrorist attacks to the Sept. 11, 2001, tragedy, the escalating fight between the Senate and the CIA raises an important question:

Did the aggressive interrogation techniques, which some current and former U.S. officials and foreign governments say constituted torture, help protect Americans?

Obama formally ended use of the tough interrogation methods within days of taking office in January 2009. Their use had subsided and several of the harsh methods had been abandoned in 2006, after Justice Department opinions justifying them were made public and U.S. abuses of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq caused an international uproar.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, hasn’t released the 6,300-page report on her aides’ review of the interrogation program. The committee voted to send the report, its executive summary and the findings to the White House for declassification.

  • ps0rjl

    And now we here from another armchair CIA employee about defending “enhanced interrogation techniques”. The Marines refused to help when the CIA spooks came to their prisons to do it. The orders came down from the Commandant that no Marines would take part. Their reasoning was that it was against the Geneva Convention and they also didn’t want any captured Marines to suffer the same enhanced techniques. The only Army unit that did it was at Abu Grahb and they were all subsequently charge , given dishonorable discharges, and sentenced to prison and General Janet Kapinski and her senior staff were all given reprimands which effectively ended their careers. I would like to see Mr. Rizzo and the rest of the neocons undergo these techniques at least a dozen times each and then they can tell us how this is not torture.
    In WWII the Nazis gained immeasurable information from Allied airman by instead of torturing airman they assigned an English speaking German to befriend the airmen. These Germans never lied to the airman and became more like friends to the airman. Then with good spies, observation, and casual conversation they were able to glean helpful information.
    These neocons who support this “enhanced interrogation” have done irreparable harm to our standing in the world.

  • Elle’s Island

    Today’s liberalism is nothing more than communism without the manifesto.

  • Allan Richardson

    This reminds me of the brat caught with his hand in the cookie jar who complains that his Mom shouldn’t be spying on him! The CIA works for the American people, and the Senate Intelligence Committee represents us in Washington. Therefore, the Chair of that Senate Committee has the right to inspect classified CIA documents, provided they are not disclosed to the public at large, but the CIA does not have the right to spy on what the Senate is doing. If they do, the Senate has the authority to punish them.

    The reason J. Edgar Hoover escaped the scrutiny of his superiors for so many years is that he spied on everybody from the Presidents on down, and had blackmail secrets that kept them from firing him; and despite his early successes, that spying made him deserve to be fired.