The Political Chase

CIA probe today may merit an Emmy

Who may show up (or not) at the House Judiciary Committee hearing* today on the interrogation of detainees and the CIA’s destruction of related videotapes may turn out to be as interesting as any testimony that may be given. Committee Chairman Conyers sent letters on December 7th requesting information from Attorney General Michael Mukasey†, and CIA Directory Michael Hayden††. Mukasey declined to answer any of Conyers’ questions, and moreover told Conyers and the rest of Congress to butt out. The CIA has agreed to provide documents and allow the agency’s top lawyer to testify, but it is unclear when the CIA will testify and if all witnesses requested will be allowed to or are willing to testify.

Simply stated – if testimony from any individual may impugn the “integrity” of the Bush administration in any way, that individual will not testify or produce documents. But the CIA tapes are not the only matter that may be discussed today. The Committee may hear about more nefarious activities of the Bush administration – retaliation against military lawyers that are outspoken against the administration’s policies and procedures on the treatment of detainees

Unsigned subpoenas were sent to two persons in the CIA – Jose A. Rodriguez, the chief of the CIA’s clandestine service — the individual that ordered the tapes destroyed in 2005, and John A. Rizzo, the CIA’s top lawyer. Rizzo has agreed to testify, but as the Times reports, the administration is not eager to allow the one person that allegedly knows the most about the destruction of the tapes to testify.

Officials said Mr. Rodriguez’s appearance before the committee might involve complex negotiations over legal immunity at a time when the Justice Department and the intelligence agency were reviewing whether the destruction of the tapes broke any laws.

Of course Mr. Rodriguez will not be allowed to testify. That might significantly expedite the investigation, which would be a direct violation of the administration’s long-standing policy to obfuscate and obstruct whenever and however possible.

It appears Conyers’ plan is to schedule multiple hearings with only one agency scheduled per hearing. According to the Committee’s web site, the Department of Justice is on the agenda for today, as well as four other witnesses external to the DOJ. Notwithstanding Conyers’ strong rebuttal to Mukasey’s butt-out letter, there will doubtfully be little information provided by the Justice Department today, if any at all. If Mukasey wants his term as Attorney General to be one of the shortest in American history he’ll testify, otherwise Mr. Bush might let him remain until January 20, 2009.

With respect to the witnesses external to the Department, at least one of them may shed light on more nefarious activities by the administration. The witnesses external to the Department are: Stephen Saltzburg, The George Washington University Law School; John Radsan, William Mitchell College of Law; David Rivkin, Baker & Hostetler LLP; and, Elisa Massimino, Washington Director of Human Rights First.

Saltzburg is also general counsel to the National Institute of Military Justice and will likely be a witness hostile to the administration. He has been consulted on and spoken out against the administration in yet another revelation of mischief by the Bush administration.

In an excellent piece of investigative reporting, Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe recently revealed the Bush administration intends to (and probably already has) retaliate against military lawyers that have been outspoken against the administration’s policies and procedures on the treatment of detainees. On December 15th, Savage reported:

The Bush administration is escalating a conflict over the independence of military lawyers who have repeatedly raised objections to White House policies over prisoners held as enemy combatants.

The administration has proposed a regulation requiring “coordination” with politically appointed Pentagon lawyers before the promotion of any member of the Judge Advocate General Corps, the military’s 4,000-member uniformed legal force.

Former JAG officers say the regulation would end the uniformed lawyers’ role as a check on presidential power because politically appointed lawyers could block the promotion of JAGs who they believe would speak up if they think a White House policy is illegal.

If history foretells the future, I would pay close attention to Representatives Artur Davis (D-GA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-NY), and Robert Wexler (D-FL).

————-

* - Hearing on Applicability of Federal Criminal Laws to the Interrogation of Detainees

† - Conyers to Mukasey Dec. 7, 2007 (pdf)

†† - Conyers to Hayden Dec. 7, 2007 (pdf)