A Scramble at the CIA to Lawyer Up

[Demeter]

Source: Newsweek

Attorney general Michael Mukasey's decision to launch a full-scale FBI probe into the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes has sent several alarmed agency employees scrambling to find lawyers. To lead the probe, the A.G. named John Durham, a hard-nosed veteran prosecutor who is assembling a team of deputies and FBI agents. Some CIA veterans fear the move is tantamount to unleashing an independent counsel on Langley. "A lot of people are worried," says one former CIA official, who asked not to be identified talking about sensitive matters. "Whenever you have the bureau running around the building, it's going to turn up some heads. This could turn into a witch hunt." Justice officials say Durham was assigned to investigate the 2005 decision to destroy the tapes—not the activities recorded on them, including the use of waterboarding on Al Qaeda suspects. But at this point, Durham has no formal mandate on the probe's scope, giving him the freedom to expand it if he chooses. "We're going to follow this wherever it leads," says one Justice official, who asked not to be identified discussing an ongoing probe.

One key figure, Jose Rodriguez, the former CIA chief of clandestine services who gave the order to destroy the videotapes, has retained Robert Bennett, a renowned defense lawyer who represented Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Another potential witness, George Tenet, who was CIA director when the tapes were made, will be represented by former FBI general counsel Howard Shapiro. Roy Krieger, a Washington lawyer who has represented about 100 CIA employees, says that two agency officers have approached him about representation, though neither has retained him yet.

For the CIA spooks involved, cost is a serious issue. Krieger says legal expenses for each employee could reach "hundreds of thousands" of dollars; the CIA will not foot the bill. In anticipation of just such a scenario, however, the agency some years ago began encouraging its employees to purchase special liability-insurance policies from Wright & Co., a Virginia firm that specializes in coverage for government investigators. A Wright spokesman had no response to questions about whether claims have been filed for legal fees in connection with the tapes inquiry. CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano confirmed the agency does not pay its officers' legal bills, but added "only a very, very small subset of agency activities ever become the subject of litigation or investigation."



Read more: http://www.newsweek.com/id/84572

[Solly Mack]

1. Back in Sept. 2006, CIA agents were taking out "torture insurance"

CIA agents insure against torture lawsuits


"Worried CIA agents are taking out torture insurance as fears grow that they will be targeted by alleged terrorists and their victims in American courts.

The £160-a-year policies will provide the spies with about £106,000 in legal costs and about £530,000 towards awards made by the courts if they are sued and lose.

The policies cover suits lodged for torture, human rights abuse and professional failings in the lead-up to the September 11 atrocities.


The spy agency said that its employees were not the only government officials taking out the policies."



and from the Washington Post


Worried CIA Officers Buy Legal Insurance


"The insurance policies were bought from Arlington-based Wright and Co., a subsidiary of the private Special Agents Mutual Benefit Association created by former FBI officials. The CIA has encouraged many of its officers to take out the insurance, current and former intelligence officials said, but no one interviewed would reveal precisely how many have bought policies.

As part of the administration's efforts to protect intelligence officers from liability, Bush last week called for Congress to approve legislation drafted by the White House that would exempt CIA officers and other federal civilian officials from prosecution for humiliating and degrading terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. Its wording would keep prosecutors or courts from considering a wider definition of actions that constitute torture.

Bush also asked Congress to bar federal courts from considering lawsuits by detainees who were in CIA or military custody that allege violations of international treaties and laws governing treatment of detainees."

[sam sarrha]

2. not too long ago they admitted to torturing at least 200 innocent people to death.. accidentally

[Teaser]

3. run and hide, rats

.

[leveymg]

4. The scope of the investigation will be far wider than the eventual prosecution, just as it

was in the Plame case. What's going to come out is some of the ugly details of the pressures placed on CIA by the White House -- particularly by Cheney and Addington at OVP -- to violate statute and treaty that make torture a crime under US and international law.

Only those most directly involved in the decision to destroy the tapes will actually be prosecuted, under the currently limited terms of Mukasey's Justice Dept. tasking. That, in itself, seems to be a manifest injustice. Bush is likely to pardon those involved, anyway.

But, what we'll likely hear from Rodriguez and any others indicted are some details about the deliberations made higher up in the Agency and within the Administration about what to do with evidence of torture and other systematic war crimes. We may even hear some whispers about why certain CIA detainees -- those involved in CIA training of several key 9/11 hijackers were chosen for the most severe, mind-destroying forms of torture -- while others were not. See, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/337

[mallard]

7. Exactly

Re: "Only those most directly involved in the decision to destroy the tapes will actually be prosecuted ..."

That's the main point in a nutshell. This ain't about liscence to torture - it's sham bureaucratic heat over breaking protocol.

Go back to your pastures ang graze now, America - we're making the world safer for USselves.

Fucking evil reigns with Mukasey. Imagine our shock!

[rockybelt]

5. Why are they lawyering up?

Remember who is in charge of this investigation and has appointed a specifically non-independent investigator? Mukasey will bury this in red tape because his boss is guilty of war crimes and he knows it.

[leveymg]

6. The best thing at this point would be to delay the most important parts of the case until next year.

Perhaps, the severely limited scope of the prosecution is a good thing. Those who are pardoned can not invoke the 5th Amendment to avoid testifying in later proceedings.

Prosecution of those involved in the underlying crimes will likely wait until after Bush is gone. If Bush issues a pardon for those who ordered and carried out torture, these individuals can be indicted under the UN Convention Against Torture. A presidential pardon does not nullify prosecution by an international tribunal under that treaty. In fact, a pardon would make Bush additionally liable to being indicted at the Hague as a conspirator to crimes of torture after-the-fact.

I have a feeling that many of these considerations and uncertainties -- the effect of pardons, potential prosecution under international law -- are behind the deal to approve Mukasey's confirmation.

[rockybelt]

12. But bush is not after the fact

He had to order that torture be carried out. He is guilty of war crimes as those who followed those orders are guilty of war crimes. Pardons have nothing to do with what should befall these people, If you are pardoned by the one who ordered you to commit the crime that pardon is null and void.

[bluesmail]

8. HA! is the only word I can think of. n/t

oh wait, it's doubles. HA! HA!

[KansDem]

9. Why not just waterboard them?

Why should those who would deny due process to others have access to lawyers?

It's all very perplexing...:crazy:

[fascisthunter]

10. We Need a National Campaign to Paint those Involved as TRAITORS

And we need to be unrelenting about it too.

[DeepModem Mom]

11. K&R

[Supersedeas]

13. eh....Mukasey is not real threat to any Bushist official