Extraordinary Hearing on Extraordinary Rendition

[Beatnik]

I subscribe to Steven Aftergood's (of the Federation of American Scientists) Secrecy News e-mail newsletter (which is also available in blog form). It comes out a couple times a week often features Congressional Research Service reports, government transparency issues, FISA, FOIA, etc.

Today's newsletter included a record of testimony from Michael Scheuer, the architecht of the CIA's rendition program, which was apparently started under Bill Clinton. The text of the newsletter article with a pdf link to his statement and testimony is below. It's pretty compelling reading, given the fact that it's from a House committee transcript.

--
EXTRAORDINARY HEARING ON EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION

The House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing last April on the
policy of "extraordinary rendition," referring to the seizure of
suspected terrorists and their transfer to a foreign country for
detention and interrogation.

The record of the hearing, which has just been published, features the
volatile Michael Scheuer, a former CIA official involved in the
rendition program. It is exceptionally nasty and occasionally funny.

Mr. Scheuer, veering from outrageous to absurd and back again, attacked
John McCain, the Washington Post's Dana Priest and quite a few others in
remarkably offensive terms.

See "Extraordinary Rendition in U.S. Counterterrorism Policy: The
Impact on Transatlantic Relations," House Foreign Affairs Committee,
April 17, 2007:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2007_hr/rendition.pdf

"Oftentimes," Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) delicately observed, "people aspire
to a higher percentage of their thoughts going unspoken than this
hearing has demonstrated."

[Steeler]

Sweet Jebus, I don't want that guy in charge of anything my government does.

[El_Gringo_Grande]

That was a throughly interesting read.

Scheuer is a wonderful example of what bureaucracy produces. A person that can cause harm yet feel innocent because they did not make the decision to cause the harm. The lawyers made the decision. The White House gave the order. God declares I must do this. Voices told me to kill them all.

Nice.

[USN_Squid]

I read his opening statement and some of the questioning. I don't have time to read the entire 50 pages however.

What are some the quotables that offend you most?

[Beatnik]

It gets more interesting as it goes on. I wouldn't characterize it as offensive as much as insightful into the mindset behind such covert operations and the people who run them.

I thought his candor was refreshing, even if I didn't agree with his assessment or complete faith in "lawyers" and the intel being given to him.

[Steeler]

Some choice samples:

Mr. SCHEUER. Let’s be clear, Mr. Chairman. The only reason we
would have preferred that is because we knew we were going to get
hung out to dry at the end of the day. No one really cares what
happens to these people—let me speak for myself.
Mr. DELAHUNT. All what people?
Mr. SCHEUER. I don’t care what happens to the people who are
targeted and rendered. We wouldn’t be operating against them unless
they were enemies of the United States.
Mr. DELAHUNT. What about those that clearly eventually were
determined to be innocent?
Mr. SCHEUER. Mistakes are made, sir.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mistakes are made.
Mr. SCHEUER. And if you can prove that there was not due diligence
in designing the target package or assembling the information
that caused that operation to go forward, then you have a case
against someone. Otherwise, it is a mistake.
Mr. DELAHUNT. It is just a mistake.
Mr. SCHEUER. Yes, sir. They are not Americans. I really don’t
care.
Mr. DELAHUNT. And if they were not Americans you don’t care.
That is very interesting.
Mr. SCHEUER. I never got paid, sir, to be a citizen of the world.
Maybe you do.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I am not paid to become a citizen of the world.
I am paid to represent the people in my particular district and to
represent the American people writ large and to respect the Constitution
and understand that America has justifiably a certain
claim to moral authority. And we do care. That is why I am paid.
And, with that, I will yield to the gentleman from California.

(Dana Rohrabacher then goes on a long rant about how America is awesome. I happen to agree that it is, but I'm not sure how it is relevant to the hearing. Then he talk about dirty bombs and saving Europe in WWII, Churchill, and won't someone think of the children. This all starts on page 21 of the document, 26 of the pdf. Anyway, back to Scheuer.)

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you. This has been illuminating.
Mr. Scheuer, do you believe that we can win this war on our
own?
Mr. SCHEUER. Yes, sir.
Mr. FLAKE. The Americans?
Mr. SCHEUER. Yes, sir. I believe Americans can do anything, sir.
Mr. FLAKE. Without the assistance of Europe?
Mr. SCHEUER. Europe is a declining continent. Its demographics
are going over the edge. There are two popular and permitted bigotries in Europe, anti-Americanism and anti-Roman Catholicism. It
is even today——
Mr. FLAKE. I think you would concede that, if they might be declining,
they are going to be around for a while.
Mr. SCHEUER. They may be, sir. They may not be.
Mr. FLAKE. Well, while they are, while they are, do you look to
balance at all, if your main goal—and I understand your main goal
is to protect me and my children.
Mr. SCHEUER. More selfishly, sir, my grandchildren.
Mr. FLAKE. Good. But if that is your goal, do you at the CIA try
to balance it all, what the best means to do that should be? Should
it be with cooperation with our allies or to go it alone?
Mr. SCHEUER. If they were willing to cooperate, sir, absolutely.
But we cannot put up—we cannot cooperate very effectively with
a continent who allows terrorists, either wanted or convicted, to
have residency and live on the dole and refuse to send them back
to countries simply because there is the death penalty. There is a
very vibrant cooperation with Europe, but it is very limited.
Mr. FLAKE. Ms. Smith, have we received cooperation? Was there
not an incident just a while ago where Europe was quite helpful
with regard to suspected terrorists flying over here?
Ms. SMITH. Absolutely.

This guy has a chip on his shoulder a mile wide.

Anyway he goes on a little later to rightly describe the fundamental folly of preemptive war in Iraq and the nonsense of neocon nation-building, while at the same time supporting preemptive and unapologetic civil or covert action against specific terror suspects. Sounds like he thinks he's been hung out to dry for other people's bad decisions. I can certainly respect that, although his candid American exceptionalism and disdain for non-Americans is unsettling.

[USN_Squid]

Right, I read all that. I just didn't see anything to get excited about. I think it's refreshing to know that the guy who was in charge of chasing Bin Laden isn't a silver-tongued ex-attorney pining for a political career.

"his candid American exceptionalism and disdain for non-Americans" is, in my opinion, a job description for the head of a CIA anti-terrorist unit. His disdain for non-Americans was directly pointed at those that conflicted with our national security policies, as it should be.

Unfortunately, he's also publicly contradicted himself both supporting, and denying any al Qaeda ties to Iraq. Certainly not good for Ron Paul's Campaign.

[Beatnik]

Originally Posted by USN_Squid

His disdain for non-Americans was directly pointed at those that conflicted with our national security policies, as it should be.

That's not accurate. In fact, the context of those statements was specifically regarding to those who were rendered "mistakenly". That's who he was talking about there.

Originally Posted by Quote

Mr. DELAHUNT. What about those that clearly eventually were
determined to be innocent?
Mr. SCHEUER. Mistakes are made, sir.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mistakes are made.
Mr. SCHEUER. And if you can prove that there was not due diligence
in designing the target package or assembling the information
that caused that operation to go forward, then you have a case
against someone. Otherwise, it is a mistake.
Mr. DELAHUNT. It is just a mistake.
Mr. SCHEUER. Yes, sir. They are not Americans. I really don’t
care.
Mr. DELAHUNT. And if they were not Americans you don’t care.
That is very interesting.
Mr. SCHEUER. I never got paid, sir, to be a citizen of the world.
Maybe you do.

[AMosely]

Wow, what a find Beatnik. This is awfully (and I mean that in more ways than one) rich material.

I am familiar with Scheuer insofar as having read Imperial Hubris, which was highly critical of the Bush Administration's handling of the so-called broader 'war on terror,' specifically with regard to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. It would seem to me that Scheuer is indeed a product of the American intelligence bureaucracy - he's obviously beyond disenfranchised with the mishandling (both by the government and by the public/press) of an interrogation system that he himself designed.

I'm curious as to who the 'voice' belongs to that interrupts Delahunt - asking to be allowed to testify - and is subsequently threatened with removal.

I have to agree with folks in here, though, Scheuer's attitutude is frightening. It's as though he doesn't agree with the principle that the hearings are founded on. Here is a man who cares not for the broader effects of his actions and lacks even the vision to see that as fact. He lambasts lawyers claiming they are the 'bane of the CIA's existence,' yet he consistently hides behind legal precedent and protection in his testmony - as in "And I have to say again, no rendered al-Qaeda leader has ever been kidnapped by the United States. They have always first either been arrested or siezed by a local security or intelligence service." It's as though he is proud of how deceptive the system is - and also how proudly unaccountable his position is (or so he believes).

This quote on page 20 really sums up his most fundamental flaw, in my opinion: in speaking about released 'enemy combatants, Scheuer states "no one really cares what happens to these people - let me speak for myself." Delahunt: "All what people?" Scheuer: "I don't care what happens to the people who are targeted and rendered. We wouldn't be operating against them unless they were enemies of the United States."

[AMosely]

Addition - I wish Scheuer would have finished this thought (p. 38)

"I need to be very clear. Unqualified support for Israel, our ability at least until recently to limit the price of petroleum, our support for states who are deemed oppressors of Muslims throughout the world, especially Rusiia, China and India, our present civilian and military on the Arabian Peninsula, our military presence elsewhere in the Islamic world and probably, most damagningly, 50 years of support for Arab tyranny around the world in which our European- "

Where was he going with this (other than the Bin Laden-Saudi connection), because if it's where I think he's going, he's painting a pretty accurate picture of why Arabs are hating Americans (not America) more and more. Scheuer has also said numerous times that Bush's administration has done a tremendous disservice by stating that Arabs (or Muslims) 'hate' America and its freedoms. That statement is completely false, and training Americans to believe it is only going to perpetuate the kinds of attitudes and policies that are consistently misinterpreted and resented by the Arab world.

[USN_Squid]

Originally Posted by Beatnik

That's not accurate. In fact, the context of those statements was specifically regarding to those who were rendered "mistakenly". That's who he was talking about there.

I stand corrected.

[Beatnik]

Originally Posted by AMosely

Addition - I wish Scheuer would have finished this thought (p. 38)

"I need to be very clear. Unqualified support for Israel, our ability at least until recently to limit the price of petroleum, our support for states who are deemed oppressors of Muslims throughout the world, especially Rusiia, China and India, our present civilian and military on the Arabian Peninsula, our military presence elsewhere in the Islamic world and probably, most damagningly, 50 years of support for Arab tyranny around the world in which our European- "

Where was he going with this (other than the Bin Laden-Saudi connection), because if it's where I think he's going, he's painting a pretty accurate picture of why Arabs are hating Americans (not America) more and more. Scheuer has also said numerous times that Bush's administration has done a tremendous disservice by stating that Arabs (or Muslims) 'hate' America and its freedoms. That statement is completely false, and training Americans to believe it is only going to perpetuate the kinds of attitudes and policies that are consistently misinterpreted and resented by the Arab world.

Agreed. I've gotta admit I'm very ambivalent about the whole thing, the testimony, the practice of rendition itself, Scheuer and his blase attitude, the perception that creates at home and abroad, etc. He certainly makes valid points in his criticisms of both the Clinton and Bush efforts using the program. But then his xenophobic, myopic, careless characterization of everyone they capture being a legitimate threat (even the "mistakes" don't warrant any type of redress in his mind), and his blind faith in the judgement of lawyers, especially given the respect we've seen afforded to the law from Bush's lawyers like Gonzoles, Miers, et al, makes me want to smash his head in.

From my perspective, he articulated the very best (the intention to try to protect us) and the very worst (the method in which they choose to realize those intentions) aspects of this very complicated issue. Really fascinating stuff, with no easy answer or perspective to take.

[AMosely]

Originally Posted by USN_Squid

Right, I read all that. I just didn't see anything to get excited about.

Squid, I'm curious - if you were mistakenly kidnapped or 'siezed' by a foreign security agency, would you want someone in that organization to care what happened to you? Would you think you deserved to be heard? Would you think you were entitled to fair treatment while waiting to be heard or evaluated? If everyone involved claimed to be numb to your case and in no way involved in its legitimacy, would you feel frustrated? Excited, perhaps?

[USN_Squid]

Originally Posted by AMosely

Squid, I'm curious - if you were mistakenly kidnapped or 'siezed' by a foreign security agency, would you want someone in that organization to care what happened to you? Would you think you deserved to be heard? Would you think you were entitled to fair treatment while waiting to be heard or evaluated? If everyone involved claimed to be numb to your case and in no way involved in its legitimacy, would you feel frustrated? Excited, perhaps?

That's a mischaracterization of his attitude towards the law. This is what he said that struck me:

Mr. SCHEUER. And if you can prove that there was not due diligence
in designing the target package or assembling the information
that caused that operation to go forward, then you have a case
against someone

But to answer your question, they have no obligation to "care" about me. I would want a fair legal process of course, and Scheuer's testimony made it pretty clear to me that the law was followed, even where there were mistakes. I believe he said there were 3...3 mistakes out of the hundreds of arrests. So, again, the fact that he doesn't care about them, whatever that means, doesn't bother me so much. If the law was followed, what were the consequences of him not caring? Our damaged reputation in the world? I'll reiterate that I think the world should be afraid of our CIA.

Also, notice how his attitude is much more professional and relaxed when Rohrabacher asks him some questions. Scheuer obviously is hostile to the line of questioning from Delahunt. I think it's understandable that he'd be more flippant when he thinks he's the target of a witch hunt.

[AMosely]

Originally Posted by USN_Squid

That's a mischaracterization of his attitude towards the law. This is what he said that struck me:

Mr. SCHEUER. And if you can prove that there was not due diligence
in designing the target package or assembling the information
that caused that operation to go forward, then you have a case
against someone

But to answer your question, they have no obligation to "care" about me. I would want a fair legal process of course, and Scheuer's testimony made it pretty clear to me that the law was followed, even where there were mistakes. I believe he said there were 3...3 mistakes out of the hundreds of arrests. So, again, the fact that he doesn't care about them, whatever that means, doesn't bother me so much. If the law was followed, what were the consequences of him not caring? Our damaged reputation in the world? I'll reiterate that I think the world should be afraid of our CIA.

Also, notice how his attitude is much more professional and relaxed when Rohrabacher asks him some questions. Scheuer obviously is hostile to the line of questioning from Delahunt. I think it's understandable that he'd be more flippant when he thinks he's the target of a witch hunt.

I certainly see where you are coming from, and the purpose of my questioning isn't to prove you wrong but to better clarify our viewpoints.

So with those 3 'mistakes', we know there is the possibility of error in the system. Also, based on the testimony we know the system was cleverly designed to essentially make breaking US law (regarding the fair and judicial treatment of prisoners) legal, and absolving all US officials of any responsibility.

Back to the rendition of Squid: let's assume that you are mistakenly siezed, and the law as you know it is not followed (you are given no rights, you are interrogated, etc.) Let's take it a step further. Suppose that Scheuer is French, and you were siezed by Albanian agents who (as you later find out) were operating under the Scheuer's French rendition program. Would you find his description of the system under which you were held for several years to be acceptable and fair? Further - would you think anyone in your home town (or country) wrong for despising the French?

Edit: I think the quote from Scheuer's testimony that you provided above is evasive and slightly arrogant. How is the public expected to make a case against a secret system that has been designed to shed accountability? He may as well have said 'no one' instead of 'someone,' because that would have been a more accurate description of the outcome.