One last thing from today’s Zelikow/Soufan hearing. Phil Zelikow was an aide to Condoleezza Rice when she served as secretary of state during George W. Bush’s second term. In his testimony, perhaps unsurprisingly, he portrayed Rice as pushing to restrict the Bush administration’s torture policies. “As Secretary of State, Dr. Rice placed a high priority on changing the national approach to the treatment of detainees,” Zelikow said in his opening statement, but the department ran into a bureaucratic buzzsaw of opposition from the Pentagon, Justice Department and elsewhere.
Perhaps. But according to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s declassified narrative on torture, Rice, as national security adviser in 2002, was the highest-ranking Bush official to approve torture as a “policy” matter. That approval came on July 17, 2002, before the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel gave its legal imprimatur to the torture of Abu Zubaydah. Now, people change their minds all the time, so maybe that’s what happened to Rice, particularly as she became secretary of state and saw what the international outcry from Abu Ghraib meant for U.S. diplomacy. But that’s conjecture. How did the Rice of 2002 evolve into the Rice of 2005 on the issue?
I asked Zelikow after the hearing ended, but he was circumspect. “I did not interrogate Dr. Rice about anything she did in the first Bush administration,” he replied. But he said it would be “useful to find out how the [CIA interrogation] program was understood” by Bush administration policymakers, adding that his experience suggested it was “sold incrementally” to them. The implication — sympathetic as it is to Zelikow’s former boss — is that Rice may not have fully understood what CIA Director George Tenet was asking her to approve.
Crossposted to The Streak. Updated to add a video; I didn’t know C-SPAN was broadcasting that…



5 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Is it even possible that Rice really DID think it was sound legally but then changed later after Zelikow and others pointed out it wasn’t? I don’t want to give her a pass on this but could it have happened that way?
Hopefully Zelikow’s whole opening statement will be put online — maybe at the Sen Jud Cmte’s website — because while that’s possible, Zelikow’s statement portrays her as a leader of State’s efforts in 2005-6 against torture, not a follower. I tried in the above post to be charitable to her. People change their minds. But Zelikow didn’t portray Rice as responding to anything he or others said.
Additionally, her lawyer at State, John Bellinger, was her lawyer at NSC. So it’s not like she got a fresh legal set of eyes there.
I expect that Condi and Bellinger and the NSC principals weren’t fully informed about what they were signing on to in 2002. I think the Torture Gang gamed the bureaucratic system and did a whole lot of sanitizing of their proposals, making the EITs seem tough but fairly benign, and don’t forget, sprinkled with OLC holy water. All they were interested in was getting the bureaucratic check-boxes filled and covering their backsides.
Remember when the JPRA memo was released a few weeks ago — the one that warned in July 2002 that the SERE techniques were potentially dangerous and might produce unreliable info — the WaPo reported that no one could tell whether Haynes had shared these warnings with anyone. A few choice quotes from that article by Peter Finn and Joby Warrick from April 25:
At the time, emptywheel speculated that the “former administration official”, who knew what the NSC was briefed on, is Bellinger. And when Bellinger got over to State and the reality of what the EITs really were all about started to come out, perhaps both he and his boss started realizing that they’d been had for suckers by the Torture Gang.
I think Zelikow’s right — the real story is how a small group managed to game the entire bureaucracy to impose their worldview, get control of the implementation process, and do all sorts of mischief — all the while either misleading “decisionmakers” or keeping the process away from anyone (the second-tier officials at State, DoD, FBI, Congress, etc) who might have been in a position to raise a real stink. Until it was too late (the 2004 IG report after which they finally started being a bit more forthcoming in the Congressional briefings). But in the meantime, they’d managed to compromise everybody just enough to cover their asses.
And I now see emptywheel has just followed up with how the Bushies gamed the briefing process.
I think they gamed the NSC approval process as well, which explains how Rice and Bellinger had such a shift when they moved to State — that’s also when the true nature of the EIT program was becoming much clearer to those on the inside.
SJC Link to Zelikow statement (pdf)
I am not a big fan of Zelikow. Given his long term working relationship with Rice, knowing too that she was National Security Adviser during this time, he wants us to believe he never asked her about anything to do with torture. To me, that is just unbelievable on its face.