Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Criminal law, Lawyering, Media, Politics, Society

CIA Acting General Counsel Accused Of Attempted Intimidation Of Staffers Investigating His Role in Alleged Torture Program

225px-dianne_feinstein_official_senate_photoCIAWe have previously discussed the irony of Senator Dianne Feinstein expressing outrage over the fact that her staff was subject to warrantless CIA surveillance. Feinstein’s outrage over the spying on her staff is only matched by her lack of outrage over the spying on the rest of America. However, she does have an good point to raise with regard to the role of one lawyer who seems to be dancing along the edge of both ethical and legal standards. He is the acting CIA general counsel Robert Eatinger who is believed to have played a large role in the programs and actions under investigation. Eatinger is well known to civil libertarians as someone involved in past abuses by the agency.


The CIA is accused of searching the computers used by the Senate Intelligence Committee to investigate harsh interrogation techniques and removed previously available documents from the system. Almost a 1000 documents were deleted or removed in part from the computers. This obviously violated the separation of powers and core Article I authority. It also raises possible violations, as Feinstein states, under Fourth Amendment, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Executive Order 12333.

Eatinger is specifically accused of “a potential effort to intimidate” staffers. Eatinger’s role is particularly problematic because he has been the subject of congressional investigation over a variety of abuses and, as Feinstein notes, “[h]e is mentioned by name more than 1,600 times in our study.” She raises a good point of the obvious conflict of interest for Eatinger: “And now this individual is sending a crimes report to the Department of Justice on the actions of the same congressional staff who researched and drafted a report—which details how CIA officers, including the acting general counsel himself, provided inaccurate information to the Department of Justice about the program.” Of course, if Eatinger is ok with destroying evidence and violating human rights, the ethics rules may not offer much of a barrier for him.

Eatinger holds an infamous position for civil libertarians and many lawyers in these scandals. He was a lawyer in the C.I.A.’s Counterterrorism Center when the agency was running the detention and interrogation program that is the subject of alleged human rights and international law violations. In 2005, the CIA destroyed videotapes of brutal interrogations of detainees. Eatinger had been one of two lawyers to approve their destruction. As I expressed at the time, it was astonishing that no one was disciplined let alone prosecuted for the destruction of the evidence. One official admitted that the CIA wanted to destroy evidence that could be used in their own criminal prosecution. Instead of being prosecuted, people like Eatinger were promoted.

John Rizzo, former acting CIA general counsel, has defended Eatinger. In Rizzo’s 2013 memoir, “Company Man,” he recounts how Eatinger learned that Jose Rodriguez, head of the Counterterrorism Center, had ordered the destruction of videotapes of torture over the objections of senior CIA officials and the George W. Bush White House. Eatinger was upset but Rodriguez was citing Eatinger’s legal advice. The book says that Eatinger and another lawyer had told Rodriguez he was not barred from destroying evidence, but he never expressly authorized it. I fail to see the distinction since I view the destruction as raising serious questions of criminal conduct.

In 2009, Judge Royce C. Lamberth issued an opinion that accused Eatinger, Rizzo, Radsan and other CIA employees of fraud for allegedly withholding information on a CIA operative accused in a civil case. Now his name has come up again with regard to spying on Congress and an effort to intimidate staffers investigating, among other people, Eatinger himself.

Eatinger’s career speaks volumes about the lack of serious deterrent or accountability among intelligence officials. He is the very personification of an intelligence community that has become dangerously independent and unchecked. It was only a matter of time before that sense of impunity would result in the agency defying Congress itself.

The latest scandal shows the sense of absolute immunity enjoyed by intelligence officials — that sense is the result of years of acquiescence and passivity by Congress and the courts. If Eatinger is denounced as the manifestation of the arrogance in the intelligence community, Congress has been the enabler of such attitudes. Even in the face of perjury, Congress (and specifically Feinstein’s committee) has looked the other way and scrupled efforts to investigate.

Ironically, civil libertarians have not been particularly hopeful about the report from a committee long viewed as a rubber stamp for the intelligence agencies. Yet, the very fact that we are debating how this is going to turn out shows the degree to which the “fourth branch” now challenges our constitutional system, as discussed in an earlier column. The CIA is pushing back on this scandal and defending Eatinger’s role combating an investigation into his own conduct and those of his colleagues. This is after the agency has delayed the release of a report on these programs by controlling classified material and witnesses.

The ethics rules allow government lawyers to continue to work in areas of conflicts as long as they have a waiver from their agency — an often meaningless distinction in small legal shops like the CIA General Counsel’s office. Yet, it will be interesting to see if Eatinger received such a written waiver from the CIA director. In this case, it is highly troubling to have Eatinger involved in any aspect of the investigation when he could face personal repercussions from the conclusions of the Committee. If a waiver was given, it was a poor decision by the CIA director that itself raises questions over his judgment and commitment to the resolution of these serious allegations.

I have litigated the issue of such conflicts of interest by agency lawyers, including the ongoing controversy in the World Bank case. In this case, Eatinger is involved in seeking a criminal investigation of investigators who have been questioning his role in not just an alleged torture program but the destruction of evidence of torture. To ask for a waiver in such a case would show a lack of professional judgment. To sign such a waiver would show an equal lack of judgment.

CIA Director John Brennan scoffed at the notion that the agency would commit such actions as “beyond the scope” of reason. He insists that they would just not do such a thing. Someone needs to remind him that the CIA is being investigated for torture, evidence destruction, and other major crimes. The “trust us we are the CIA” approach may not work particularly well in this case, even if it has apparently succeeded for years before this very Committee.

270 thoughts on “CIA Acting General Counsel Accused Of Attempted Intimidation Of Staffers Investigating His Role in Alleged Torture Program”

  1. I stated in a previous post that the United States’ policy in the Middle East has been an abject failure. I don’t know what else you want. Why aren’t you pounding the drum of Obama’s secret drone program that is killing innocent men, women, children and terrorist, a.k.a. animals in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Are you on a mission to beat Bush into the ground.

  2. Max-1

    Well, I appreciate that took the time to read my post and give me your POV. I respect your position, but it has not changed my position one iota. You can continue to beat the drum and hopefully you will get tired enough to move on. Let me ask you the same question I asked Jill, but she did not answer: What is your definition of TORTURE. In my opinion torture is not the greatest threat to my country. Barack Obama is.

  3. In May of 2010, the committee staff noticed that [certain] documents that had been provided for the committee’s review were no longer accessible. Staff approached the CIA personnel at the offsite location, who initially denied that documents had been removed. CIA personnel then blamed information technology personnel, who were almost all contractors, for removing the documents themselves without direction or authority. And then the CIA stated that the removal of the documents was ordered by the White House. When the committee approached the White House, the White House denied giving the CIA any such order.

    http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=db84e844-01bb-4eb6-b318-31486374a895
    (embolden mine)

    Cat-n-mouse…
    If true, Impeach Obama.

    How can the White House clear findings from Feinstein’s Committee if the WH is sitting on them to protect the identities of the perps?

  4. SECRET agents hiding…
    SECRET memos hidden…
    SECRET laptops skimmed…

    Can you almost see the transparency?

  6. The CIA’s Excuse: Hiding the Double Agents
    Published March 14, 2014 | By emptywheel

    Adam Goldman and Greg Miller offer the CIA’s excuse for removing documents from the SCIF where they had been made available to Senate Intelligence Committee staffers: they had to hide their double agents.
    (continued)

  8. How long is this Bush, Iraq, torturing drum going to be beaten, anyway? -Justin

    When the people who devised, authorized and covered it up are pacing in circles from behind bars in orange jumpers. -Max-1

    Yep.

  10. Justin L. Petaccio
    How long is this Bush, Iraq, torturing drum going to be beaten, anyway? I respect everyone’s opinion no matter how much we disagree, but when do we say enough? There comes a point where we keep going in circles.
    = = = =
    When the people who devised, authorized and covered it up are pacing in circles from behind bars in orange jumpers.

  11. Justin L. Petaccio
    It seems to me that Americans have their hands full with trying to stop this president from doing any further damage to our country. Can we agree on that?
    = = = = = =
    Correct.
    Imagine the National dialogue had the New York Times ran the headline:
    Kim Jun Un Deliberates Droning N.Korean Dissident Living in Boston, Ma.

    Would it be a provocation of war or would it be deemed a necessary targeted surgical strike? And what if they hit a wedding party, instead… For the third time?

    Security…

  12. “I resent the fact that you would state that I would or could approve of such reprehensible acts. What particular incidents are you referring to when you cite the actions above? e.g. mass murder; assassinations; torture.”

    “YES, and America is going to be in continual danger from terrorist for decades to come.”

    “But, it begs the question: What is torture?

    “I understand and appreciate the concern of some about torture used by our government. But I want to ask those who get exercised over the use of torture on animals (terrorist) who would not hesitate to sever our head from our body, why they don’t get equally exercised over the tragic loss of 3000 Americans on 9/11 or the loss of 5000 brave Americans who sacrificed their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan to protect our liberties.”

    I quote only you Justin.
    I resent the fact that you pitch innocent victims at the feet of TORTURE to mollify perspective towards the need to target “ANIMALS”. Then you ducked and dodged me calling out your very purposeful use of dehumanizing language to solidify your point. THAT was the ‘tell’.

    IF you cared about the rule of law, you would already be aware of other people and nations that stoop to that mentality to ‘solidly argue’ their points of view as justified.

    IF we as a Nation are better than that, then why the need to throw the lost lives of terrorism at the base of your dehumanizing POV? It doesn’t correlate.

    I believe we, as a Nation, ARE better than resulting to stooping to low means to achieve a goal. BTW, what was the goal in Iraq? TORTURE!!!!

  13. Justin,
    If it’s OK when the USA TORTURES…
    … Then it was OK when Saddam TORTURED!

    TORTURE is TORTURE. It isn’t any less illegal when the USA does it.
    To assume that mind frame begs to the question:
    What then, is exceptionalism?

  15. “I just want to be like Fox News: Fair & Balanced.”
    Well then, for balance… Iraq’s WMD’s much?

    You balance argument requires that we take on amnesia and forget Geneva Convention barring torture. And let’s not forget our history prosecuting US soldiers who engaged in water TORTURE during Nam. Oh, and a particular Texas Sherif that thought water TORTURE was a good thing until it landed him behind bars.

    None of that happened?

    When Saddam TORTURED… that was bad. Right?

  16. Why We Need a New Church Committee to Fix Our Broken Intelligence System
    As Senator Feinstein has revealed, the CIA will not only stall but even spy on Congress to impede its investigation of wrongdoing.
    Frederick A.O. Schwarz Jr. March 12, 2014
    http://www.thenation.com/article/178813/why-we-need-new-church-committee-fix-our-broken-intelligence-system#

    Almost forty years ago, a Senate select committee known as the Church Committee for its chair, Idaho Senator Frank Church, investigated America’s secret government. The committee’s investigation remains the most extensive of its kind in this nation’s history. Now it is time for a new committee to examine our secret government closely again, particularly for its actions in the post-9/11 period.

    This need is underscored by what has become a full-blown crisis, with Senate Intelligence Committee chair Dianne Feinstein accusing the CIA of spying on the committee, possibly violating the Constitution’s separation-of-powers principles, the Fourth Amendment and other laws.
    (continued)

    IMO
    It’s the only thing that will save DiFi and her team of yes men on the SSCI.

  17. Anyone that has followed this issue closely, here is what the big picture looks like.

    In the 1950’s Senator Joseph McCarthy was running a quasi-OVERT inquisition – publicly accusing Americans throuh guilt by association. In the 1970’s McCarthyism essentially went underground through the COVERT programs like CoinTelPro, Operation Chaos, etc. at about the same time as the so-called War on Drugs.

    Then in 2001, Bush launched a “Preemption Doctrine” was completely contrary to our Bill of Rights. Between 2001 and today a huge blacklisting and spying industry was created.

    Because the unconstitutional practices happened before 9/11 and are now established police and intel practices, it will be very difficult to make them follow their oath of office to uphold the Bill of Rights.

    Please submit ideas for fixing it but federal judges and Supreme Court justices will play a vital role in returning to rule of law nation. If this generation does not fix it, the next generation won’t know how to.

  18. The first thing that people like me try to get to the truth behind this government’s lies. We try to hold morally consistent positions, not changing our ethical demands due to membership in a sporting team or religion (political party). I work to uphold the rule of law.

Comments are closed.