Conservative media call review of interrogations a "war on the CIA"
Following Attorney General Eric Holder's announcement that a federal prosecutor will be conducting "a preliminary review into whether federal laws were violated" during interrogations of detainees suspected of terrorism, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) asserted that the investigation would be a "declaration of war against the CIA, and against common sense." Several conservative media figures have similarly advanced the claim that by looking into interrogation abuses, the Obama administration or the Justice Department has "declared war" on the CIA.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Justice Dept. opens "preliminary review" into whether laws were violated in interrogations
Holder: "Information known to me warrants opening a preliminary review into whether laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations." In his August 24 statement regarding the opening of the preliminary review, Holder also stated "previous decisions to decline prosecution" would be reviewed:
The Office of Professional Responsibility has now submitted to me its report regarding the Office of Legal Counsel memoranda related to so-called enhanced interrogation techniques. I hope to be able to make as much of that report available as possible after it undergoes a declassification review and other steps. Among other findings, the report recommends that the Department reexamine previous decisions to decline prosecution in several cases related to the interrogation of certain detainees.
I have reviewed the OPR report in depth. Moreover, I have closely examined the full, still-classified version of the 2004 CIA Inspector General's report, as well as other relevant information available to the Department. As a result of my analysis of all of this material, I have concluded that the information known to me warrants opening a preliminary review into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations. The Department regularly uses preliminary reviews to gather information to determine whether there is sufficient predication to warrant a full investigation of a matter. I want to emphasize that neither the opening of a preliminary review nor, if evidence warrants it, the commencement of a full investigation, means that charges will necessarily follow.
Rep. King claims investigation is a "declaration of war against the CIA"
Rep. King: Investigation is a "declaration of war." In an August 25 interview with Politico, King stated of the investigation, "It's bulls***. It's disgraceful. You wonder which side they're on." He also described Holder's decision as a "declaration of war against the CIA, and against common sense." [Ben Smith, Politico, 8/25/09]
Conservative media echo claim that Obama administration has declared war on the CIA
Buchanan: To investigate abuses is "to have the Justice Department declare war on the Central Intelligence Agency." MSNBC's Pat Buchanan stated of the investigation:
[I]t's dreadful in particular for this president, who is perceived as increasingly a man of the left, who have been traditionally, you know, in the caricature of the right, hostile to the security agencies of the country. To have the Justice Department declare war on the Central Intelligence Agency, to expose Leon Panetta, the CIA director as someone who can't defend his own troops, to attack the guys who did the dirty work to keep us safe for seven years and succeeded -- for a liberal president to do this is just to re-enact the worst mistakes of the Carter administration and just before it when Democratic Congress went after the CIA and the FBI, as though those were the enemies in the Cold War against communism and those were the enemies in the effort to prevent people blowing up buildings in the 1960s. [Morning Joe, 8/25/09]
NY Post: "How best for Obama to re claim a left-wing base[?] ... Simple: Declare war on the CIA." In an editorial, the New York Post stated, "How best for President Obama to re claim a left-wing base grown restive over what it sees as administration backtracking on health-care reform? Simple: Declare war on the CIA. George W. Bush's CIA, that is." [New York Post, 8/25/09]
Jed Babbin: "Obama's War on our Spies." In a column titled "Obama's War on our Spies," Human Events editor Jed Babbin wrote that "The Democrats' war on our intelligence agencies has now become a two-front war with the Obama administration attacking where Congressional Democrats couldn't." [Human Events, 8/25/09]
Peter Brookes: "[I]t's almost as if" the administration "has now declared war on the CIA." Columnist and Heritage Foundation senior fellow Peter Brookes wrote in an op-ed, "It's almost as if - in addition to the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and on terror - the Obama administration has now declared war on the CIA, which is one of our most important assets in gathering intelligence for winning these conflicts." [Boston Herald, 8/26/09] Brookes also appeared on the August 28 edition of Fox & Friends to assert that he thinks the investigation "means the Obama administration's at war with the CIA."
Wash. Times: "The Obama administration's war on the CIA continued in force this week." The Washington Times asserted in an editorial that the "Obama administration's war on the CIA continued in force this week. The result may be prosecution of CIA interrogators who work to uncover threats to national security. This witch hunt does not make America safer." [The Washington Times, 8/26/09]
Wash. Examiner: "A Justice Department war on the CIA is a high-risk, low-reward proposition." The Washington Examiner wrote in an editorial that "Attorney General Eric Holder is going to break the people who broke" Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and that "[p]rincipled liberals view a torture investigation as a moral necessity. Yet, even assuming that they have a point, every relevant fact argues against it. A Justice Department war on the CIA is a high-risk, low-reward proposition." [The Washington Examiner, 8/27/09]
Fox & Friends: "Has the Obama administration declared war on the CIA?" Fox & Friends co-hosts Dave Briggs and Gretchen Carlson teased an interview with King by asking, in Carlson's words, "Has the administration declared war on the CIA? And how are agents supposed to protect national security when they're fighting our own government?" King replied, "I've said that I believe the attorney general and the Obama administration have declared war on the CIA, and this is dramatically, dramatically weakening our defenses." [Fox & Friends, 8/28/09]
Transcripts
From the August 28 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): He's the type of person who also, for this moment, is trying to urge the attorney general's office not to start investigating past interrogation techniques. So, Peter Brookes, they're doing it anyway. What does that mean to the CIA?
BROOKES: I think it means the Obama administration's at war with the CIA. You know, today you're gonna have fellows in the field out there deciding whether they need to be more concerned about getting the terrorists or getting lawyers and getting liability insurance. I don't think this is good at all for the country. It may be a victory for some on the left, but it's certainly not a victory for our country.
[...]
BRIGGS: And has the Obama administration declared war on the CIA? And how are agents supposed to protect national security when they're fighting our own government? Congressman and ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee Peter King joins us live in minutes.
[...]
CARLSON: Coming up on the show: Has the Obama administration declared war on the CIA? Congressman Peter King will tell us why investigating them puts our own security at risk.
[...]
CARLSON: Seventeen minutes after the top of the hour. This question for you: Has the Obama administration effectively declared war on the CIA and in turn put our nation's security at risk?
KLIMEADE: Yeah, we're paying the price. Ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, Congressman Peter King joins us. Congressman, how shocked are you that we have an investigation and possible prosecution into the interrogations that happened in 2002 to 2004?
KING: Brian, this is an absolute disgrace. I can't believe it. If anyone had told us on September 12th that we were gonna be investigating the CIA because they were interrogating terrorists and threatening them, not even using any harm against them, threatening --
KILMEADE: High-value, too.
KING: Yes, high -- oh yeah, these are -- Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, he was the architect of September 11th. And the terrible crime here is that they threatened to shoot him, knowing all along they wouldn't shoot him, never intended to hurt him, just wanted to scare the guy to get information which ended up saving countless American lives. This is absolute insanity, and I've said that I believe the attorney general and the Obama administration have declared war on the CIA, and this is dramatically, dramatically weakening our defenses.
From the August 25 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
JOE SCARBOROUGH (co-host): Regardless of what -- how you feel on this issue, Pat, isn't this just politically the worst time in the world for a president whose numbers are dropping and who's losing the health care battle in public opinion across America, isn't this the worst time for this president to take on the CIA again?
BUCHANAN: And it's dreadful in particular for this president, who is perceived as increasingly a man of the left, who have been traditionally, you know, in the caricature of the right, hostile to the security agencies of the country. To have the Justice Department declare war on the Central Intelligence Agency, to expose Leon Panetta, the CIA director as someone who can't defend his own troops, to attack the guys who did the dirty work to keep us safe for seven years and succeeded -- for a liberal president to do this is just to re-enact the worst mistakes of the Carter administration and just before it when Democratic Congress went after the CIA and the FBI, as though those were the enemies in the Cold War against communism and those were the enemies in the effort to prevent people blowing up buildings in the 1960s.
The memos detail waterboarding, slamming their heads against walls, beating them the butt of a rifle, beating someone to death with a flash light, hanging them upside down for hours at a time, depriving them of sleep, torturing them with rats and insects in a dark room, slapping them in the face,etc. and this is just the stuff that they admit to doing. Think of all the stuff that they didn't put in the memos. Think of how many prisoners died in the CIA's custody because they went too far trying to beat confessions out of people against which they had little evidence of any wrong doing.
Torturing is against Federal law. In these memos it is quite obvious that laws were broken as they describe in detail prisoners being tortured to retrieve information (yet they don't give any proof that any useful information was received). Cheney himself backtracked in his comments because he knows there is no proof that torturing these people foiled any terrorist plots. As that guy from the ACLU said, What more proof do we need? Begin the prosecution already - but make sure you get the real people responsible. It is the high level people in the Bush administration that need to be punished for these crimes.
On a different note, I propose that it was the CIA who declared war on what America is and what it stands for when it began torturing detainees. Our international obligations, such as the Geneva Conventions, not to mention our stance against torture since our inception as a nation should have been well known to those who were transgressing these laws. They should be investigated, and they should be publicly punished for the shame they have brought on us all. If Mr. Panetta is indeed unable to aid such an investigation, he should step aside and let another lead the CIA back to the law.
Cons are right, this is just a bone to the far leftists in the party from Obama now because they are so peeved at health care not passing. Politics is all about timing and placating, enjoy your chew toy.
MMfA listed eight conservative media outlets who all called the investigation 'declaring war on the CIA'. So, yes, the conservative media is indeed busy promoting this nonsense.
Media Matters for America is about exposing conservative disinformation in the media. Mr. Panetta is not in the media. He has made no misleading or dishonest public statement about the investigation, so he does not yet fall within MMfA's purview.
I'm not denying Panetta's tendency to salty language, but I have not heard anything about the outburst you are describing. You are the one who claims it happened, so you provide the link, please. I'm not doing your research for you. If you can't back the claim, then just admit it.
Holder is doing this because he believes the evidence supports it. He doesn't need the President's approval to investigate wrongdoing. As for health coverage reform, no, it hasn't passed yet.
'Politics is all about timing and placating..." Sounds like typical conservative thought. Funny, I kind of thought politics, especially at the national level, was about service to your country, to something greater than yourself.
MMFA wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they were able to quote him saying as much.
So, no conservative misinformation for MMfA to bother with. I'm not exactly sure what your point is. That there are those in the media who -aren't- calling the investigation 'war on the CIA'? I knew that much already.
That is the truth that the POV recognizes. But when the head of the Justice Department writes something and signs it concerning a preliminary investigation, it is difficult for POV and his ilk to believe. Shows you the Con mind..simple to enter through the ear and exit through the mouth..nothing in there to stop it.
Blogs echoing rumors of an incident that was denied by the parties involved is not the same as a widely reported incident.
We declared all men equal, but turned a blind eye to slavery and a few generations later we killed over a half million of our own young men because of it. Even after the Civil War we attempted to appease the Southern "heritage" and allow the open discrimination of blacks in the South, and nearly a hundred years later civil rights leaders were still being assassinated by our own. We allowed the Palmer Raids to go unpunished and we got McCarthy. We swept McCarthy under the rug and we got Nixon. We pardoned Nixon and attempted to sweep Watergate under the rug and the younger members of the Nixon and Ford administrations learned how easily they could get away with whatever they wanted. And then Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et. al. decided they could torture and go unpunished because we would be too weak and cowardly as a country to demand accountability.
Everytime we attempt to turn the page without cleaning up the prior mess, we set the stage for a bigger mess down the road. I don't care who all leaves their heads on the chopping block. America does not and cannot torture our way out of fear. We are better than that. And we cannot allow it to be done in our name. We are a nation of ideas and laws. And if we allow men to become bigger and more powerful than those laws and those ideas simply because we are scared of a bunch of religious zealots, who can usually barely get over the monkey bars, then we will be America no more. But rather a hollow, frightened, shell of what once was. "Let justice be done, though the heavens fall."
Once again, a link by right ON! does not say what he thinks it does.
One day, perhaps, he will learn to read for comprehension.
Mission accomplished.
There are a few ABC reports on the CIA that bear Ross' name, but from what I can see, Brian Ross stopped short of declaring that this a "war on the CIA."
"It's all about an agenda here, period."
Well, thanks for the newsflash, all this time I was under the mistaken impression that MMFA was claiming to be fair, nonpartisan and not driven by an agenda.
Unfortunately, you actually didn't provide context.
I was already aware of Panetta's reaction due to my normal perusal of other sources. I don't depend on you for news, so don't bother flattering yourself with high and mighty claims of how you're informing the "oblivious."
There has already been tremendous ramifications that the US used torture to begin with. It is too bad the right wing is whipping up hysteria about this.
And I know the right hates trying to come up with an honest answer.
What did we gain from torture?
No hypotheticals now, no unsubstantiated conjectures...I'm looking for verified, and verifiable, truth and honesty.
What did we gain from it?
Darkmass, how dare you ask such a question? Are you an "honesty elitist"? You scare people away with facts.
I know you understand why we are in this. There is a worthwhile country at stake.
Fortunately we have the use of a weapon which doesn't fit the hands of POV and his ilk. Yes, that weapon *is* honesty.
Our soul.
Waterboarding is torture. Here's your sign: Mancow
That's not a logical argument. You criticize the left of using emotional arguments, and then you throw out that rant?
"The health care not passing?" No vote has been taken on the health care bill.
Are you really this stupid, or just pretending, Tommy. You whine, like a typical terrorist, that MMFA leaves about a supposed rant? Seriously? Thanks for proving you have zero common sense....again.
I guess it is easy to forget that the Clinton Administration had a memorandum about Al-Qaeda's willingness to attack American soil, but the incoming Bush administration ignored it...
This was before September 11th. To claim that you prevented events that did not occur is easier then saying you could have prevented an event that did occur.
P.S. If you must demonize Bush do it the right reasons, his out of control spending, then demonize Obama.
It's not a left or right issue.
All of a sudden, the right wingers on here, and around the country are "pro" CIA. Seems to me, not so long ago, they were more than willing to place a lot of blame on the CIA for "bad intelligence" given to the Bush administration as a justification for invading Iraq.
I don't remember the Bush administration being bashed as "carrying out a war on the CIA" when Bush, amonst others, directly called out the CIA for failing in their duties to gather and analyze the intelligence, and I also remember on more than one occasion of Cheney doing the same thing, telling us that the intelligence from the CIA was apparently no good.
Where was all of your outrage in protecting the CIA then?
So, as long as Obama is investigating acts of lawbreaking and illegal activities, it's somehow a war against the CIA, but when a republican President (Bush) calls the information he got from the CIA wrong, it's OK?