CIA: Please don’t torture our torturers!

“Attorney General [Eric] Holder’s decision to re-open the criminal investigation creates an atmosphere of continuous jeopardy for those whose cases the Department of Justice had previously declined to prosecute.” An “atmosphere of continuous jeopardy?” Well, boo frickin’ hoo: Seven former CIA heads try to bigfoot President Obama (and not AG Holder, where jurisdiction resides) into stopping the — already purposefully hamstrung — investigations into Dubya-era CIA torture.

As usual, Salon‘s irreplaceable Glenn Greenwald is already on top of it: “Do leaders of organizations in general ever believe that their organizations and its members should be criminally investigated and possibly prosecuted for acts carried out on behalf of that organization?…What these CIA Directors are urging would be completely improper. In fact, one could plausibly argue that where (as here) the DOJ determines that serious crimes might have been committed and an investigation needed, it would constitute obstruction of justice for the President to intervene by quashing any possibility of prosecution.“

Harman on the Hook.

“‘It’s the deepest kind of corruption,’ said a recently retired longtime national security official who was closely involved in the AIPAC investigation, ‘which was years in the making. It’s a story about the corruption of government — not legal corruption necessarily, but ethical corruption.” In a fascinating (and depressing) must-read, Congressional Quarterly‘s Jeff Stein lays bare a byzantine corruption scandal involving AIPAC, the Dubya WH, and Jane Harman, former Democratic chair of the House Intelligence Committee and, some grumbling aside, basically a “team player” for Dubya during the illegal and warrantless wiretaps episode. (Irony of ironies, it appears Harman’s misdeeds were caught on — a court-approved — wiretap.)

Talking Points Memo offers a handy timeline of the case here. Basically, on one level it’s your basic political quid-pro-quo. Harman told an unnamed suspected Israeli agent that she would “waddle into” a federal espionage case then extant against two members of AIPAC and gum up the works somehow. In return, “the suspected Israeli agent pledged to help lobby Nancy Pelosi…to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections.” (It didn’t take: Pelosi instead chose Silvestre Reyes.) “Seemingly wary of what she had just agreed to, according to an official who read the NSA transcript, Harman hung up after saying, ‘This conversation doesn’t exist.’“

Sordid enough. But what’s a mid-oughts scandal without the Dubya angle? After she had been caught on said wiretap, a federal investigation into Harman was approved…for awhile. But it seems Attorney General Alberto Gonzales now knew he had Harman in his pocket, and took advantage accordingly. “According to two officials privy to the events, Gonzales said he ‘needed Jane’ to help support the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about to be exposed by the New York Times. Harman, he told [CIA Director Porter] Goss, had helped persuade the newspaper to hold the wiretap story before, on the eve of the 2004 elections. And although it was too late to stop the Times from publishing now, she could be counted on again to help defend the program. He was right. On Dec. 21, 2005, in the midst of a firestorm of criticism about the wiretaps, Harman issued a statement defending the operation and slamming the Times, saying, ‘I believe it essential to U.S. national security, and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities.’“

Not that I need to remind anyone here, but Dubya’s use of illegal and warrantless wiretaps would, in more cases, be recognized as an impeachable offense. As it was, the Senate GOP (then in the catbird seat) held firm against hearings, and many of our congressional Dems — Feingold, Leahy, and a few other lonely souls notwithstanding — folded like a house of cards. Now, at least in the case of Harman, we know why.

Update: The NYT weighs in with their side, and it’s TLDR’ed by TPM. And Salon‘s Glenn Greenwald has a good bit of snarky fun with Harman’s recent “road to Damascus” moment regarding wiretaps.

Hayden Right?

“Unlike so many of the hacks placed in charge of important government agencies during the past six years, Hayden possesses powerful qualifications for the job…By the admittedly dismal standards of the Bush administration, then, Hayden is an unusually good appointment.” As former NSA head and probable CIA director-to-be Michael Hayden navigates the confirmation process (leaving all his Snoopgate-related answers for the secret session), he procures an endorsement from an unlikely source: Salon‘s Joe Conason: “[D]espite his military uniform, Hayden is likely to be more independent of the Pentagon and the White House than Goss was. It will help that, unlike Goss, he actually knows what he’s doing.” Hmmm. Update: Hayden is through committee on a 12-3 vote. (Feingold, for his part, voted no: “Our country needs a CIA Director who is committed to fighting terrorism aggressively without breaking the law or infringing on the rights of Americans.”

McCarthy McCarthy’ed.

“‘When the president nominated Porter Goss [as CIA director in September 2004], he sent Goss over to get a rogue agency under control,’ Steven Simon, a colleague of McCarthy’s at the National Security Council from 1994 to 1999, said Goss’s aides told him. Simon said McCarthy’s unusually public firing appeared intended not only to block leaks but also to suppress the dissent that has ‘led to these leaks. The aim was to have a chilling effect, and it will probably work for a while.‘” The WP delves deeper into the firing of CIA officer Mary McCarthy last month, and discovers it may well have been due to both her opposition to secret gulags and her anger over CIA lies on the subject.

Landing more fish.

The myriad inquiries into Republican corruption, particularly those involving the network of convicted felon Randy “Duke” Cunningham, start circling a few more names this week. FBI agents searched the home and office of Dusty Foggo, the former #3 man at CIA (handpicked by Porter Goss) who’s been rumored to be a major reason for Goss’ downfall, this morning. Similarly, and apparently as another tangent to the Cunningham case, the Justice Department has begun investigating House Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA), and particularly his relationship to a lobbying firm specializing in earmarking. Is Duke the new Casino Jack?

Goss Begone.

As y’all have probably heard by now, controversial CIA chief Porter Goss was forced to quit his post yesterday, no doubt to much rejoicing at Langley. “As the normally mild-mannered Ivo Daalder, a former staff member at the National Security Council under Bill Clinton, put it, ‘Porter Goss was such an absolute disaster for the agency and our national security that his departure comes not a day too soon.’” Goss chalked up his abrupt dismissal as “just one of those mysteries,” but other reports suggest the real reason — bribes, poker, and prostitutes — is less mysterious than it is just plain unsavory. “‘It’s all about the Duke Cunningham scandal,’ a senior law enforcement official told the Daily News in reference to Goss’ resignation.” As for his replacement, Dubya has tapped former NSA chief Michael Hayden, which may mean the warrantless wiretaps may soon get another hearing in the Senate.

Imperial Hubris.

“‘The agency is being purged on instructions from the White House,’ said a former senior CIA official…’Goss was given instructions…to get rid of those soft leakers and liberal Democrats.’” Newsday reports that the recent spate of resignations at the CIA is no accident, but rather a direct attempt by the Bushies to cleanse the agency of their enemies. Great…now I feel much safer.

Free Agents.

“‘It’s the worst roiling I’ve ever heard of,’ said one former senior official with knowledge of the events. ‘There’s confusion throughout the ranks and an extraordinary loss of morale and incentive.'” Apparently, Dubya’s newly-appointed CIA chief Porter Goss is throwing the Agency into disarray and sparking a wave of resignations, mainly due to the actions of his heavy-handed lieutenants. Is now really the best time to hamstring our intelligence agency with bumbling, partisan hackery?