[Infowarrior] - Bush Anti-Terror Policies Get Reluctant Revisit

[Richard Forno]

Bush Anti-Terror Policies Get Reluctant Revisit
Recent Disclosures Prompt Obama Administration to Rethink Approach to  
Inquiries
By Carrie Johnson and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, July 13, 2009

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/12/AR2009071202118_pf.html
After trying for months to shake off the legacy of their predecessors  
and focus on their own priorities, Obama administration officials have  
begun to concede that they cannot leave the fight against terrorism  
unexhumed and are reluctantly moving to examine some of the most  
controversial and clandestine episodes.

The acknowledgment came amid fresh disclosures about CIA activity that  
had been hidden from Congress for seven years, the secrecy surrounding  
a little-understood electronic surveillance program that operated  
without court approval, and word that Attorney General Eric H. Holder  
Jr. favors naming a criminal prosecutor to examine whether U.S.  
interrogators tortured terrorism suspects.

The way ahead for an administration grappling with severe economic  
trouble and health-care reform is all but certain to prove  
controversial, and perhaps difficult to contain for leaders who have  
foundered in their approach to national security policy.

Fears expressed by President Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm  
Emanuel, that looking back at the Bush administration would force the  
country into divisive arguments won new footing yesterday as  
conservative lawmakers challenged even small steps that Obama and his  
attorney general appear on the verge of taking.

"What's going to be the positive result from airing out and  
ventilating details of what we already knew took place and should  
never have? And we are committed to making sure it never happens  
again," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "I  
do not excuse it. I am just saying: What's the effect on America's  
image in the world?

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) struck a similar chord. "This is a terrible  
trend. . . . This is high-risk stuff, because if we chill the ability  
or the willingness of our intelligence operatives and others to get  
information that's necessary to protect America, there could be  
disastrous consequences."

But civil liberties groups and House Democrats cheered the news as a  
culmination of months-long efforts to press Obama and his aides to  
pursue the issue of detainee mistreatment and other legal violations.

"It is time to finally confront the gross human rights abuses of the  
last administration," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the American  
Civil Liberties Union's National Security Project. "Initiating a  
criminal investigation is a crucial step towards restoring the moral  
authority of the United States abroad and restoring the rule of law at  
home."

A senior Justice Department official familiar with Holder's thinking  
stressed anew yesterday that the attorney general had reluctantly come  
to lean toward naming a criminal prosecutor from inside the  
department, after months of reading classified material including a  
still-secret 2004 CIA inspector general report.

The announcement to appoint a prosecutor who may look into whether CIA  
interrogators operated outside the boundaries set by George W. Bush's  
Justice Department could come in the next few weeks, perhaps in  
concert with the release of an ethics report involving Bush lawyers,  
said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the  
process is continuing.

Federal law enforcement officials are obliged to investigate possible  
violations of anti-torture statutes and other criminal laws. That  
makes it difficult for the Obama administration to ignore material  
gleaned from watchdog reports, the International Committee of the Red  
Cross and other sources, former government lawyers said.

"Where there are egregious violations, you can't just brush them under  
the rug," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) on "Meet the Press."  
"And so I think that the attorney general, to look for some egregious  
violations, which is what he is doing now, is the right thing to do."

Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the second-highest-ranking Democrat in the  
Senate, told ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos yesterday that "those  
who broke the law need to be held accountable. No one is above the law."

But by confining any criminal investigation to the narrow issue of CIA  
interrogators who operated outside legal boundaries, and by ruling out  
the possibility of criminal charges for lawyers and policymakers, the  
Obama administration has given itself an argument for forestalling a  
broader congressional probe likely to be far messier and more public  
than a traditional law enforcement investigation.

Legal experts and former intelligence officials also raised questions  
about the likelihood of criminal indictments against interrogators.  
They point out that evidence may have been tainted on the battlefields  
of Iraq and Afghanistan, and that only one U.S. contractor has been  
convicted of a crime related to detainee mistreatment.

On another front, key Democrats suggested that the Bush White House  
may have violated laws by urging the CIA to keep secrets from  
congressional overseers.

Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), chairman of the Senate intelligence  
committee, confirmed that the CIA had withheld information from  
Congress about a covert counterterrorism program at the request of  
then-Vice President Cheney.

"This is a big problem, because the law is very clear," Feinstein said  
on "Fox News Sunday."

CIA Director Leon E. Panetta informed Congress about the covert  
program -- the nature of which has never been publicly revealed -- in  
two classified briefings last month. He said he had only recently  
learned of the nearly eight-year-old program, and he confirmed that  
past CIA managers had kept details from Congress at Cheney's request.

"If the intelligence committees had been briefed, they could have  
watched the program," Feinstein said. " . . . That was not the case,  
because we were kept in the dark." She said the withholding of covert  
information is "something that should never, ever happen again."

The CIA's failure to inform Congress was brought to light last week in  
letters by several congressional Democrats, including House  
intelligence committee Chairman Sylvestre Reyes (Tex.). The New York  
Times, citing unidentified officials, first reported that Panetta had  
told lawmakers about Cheney's role in keeping the program secret.

The revelations have heightened pressure on Obama to begin  
investigating an array of Bush administration practices. Although  
Obama halted many practices, his senior advisers have been wary of  
embracing a congressionally chartered "truth and reconciliation"  
commission to get to the bottom of the events.

Congressional Republicans decried the idea of any inquiry. "Democrats  
have twisted the facts to fit this piece of fiction and shown their  
disregard for our most sensitive national security secrets," said Kit  
Bond (Mo.), ranking Republican on the Senate intelligence panel.

Even Feinstein urged caution, saying that an ongoing Senate  
intelligence inquiry should be finished before a decision is made on  
the need for further investigation.

Republicans and some former high-ranking intelligence officials  
question whether the CIA was ever obliged to brief Congress on the  
covert program. Former agency officials have described the program as  
a technically oriented intelligence- collection effort unrelated to  
terrorism suspects or the controversial terrorist-surveillance program  
that came to light in 2005.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) cautioned against jumping to conclusions  
about whether the CIA's decision to withhold information was  
appropriate. "I don't know what the facts are. But I believe that Vice  
President Cheney served his country with as much fidelity as he could  
possibly give to it," Sessions said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

A White House spokesman had no comment on the matter.