Panetta Threatened To Quit, Got In "Screaming Match" Over Torture Probe

CIA Director threatened to quit over an potential criminal investigation of CIA torture, ABC News reported Monday.

A "profanity-laced screaming match" at the White House involving CIA Director Leon Panetta, and the expected release today of another damning internal investigation, has administration officials worrying about the direction of its newly-appoint intelligence team, current and former senior intelligence officials tell ABC News.com.

According to intelligence officials, Panetta erupted in a tirade last month during a meeting with a senior White House staff member. Panetta was reportedly upset over plans by Attorney General Eric Holder to open a criminal investigation of allegations that CIA officers broke the law in carrying out certain interrogation techniques that President Obama has termed "torture."

Panetta was apparently also upset over the release, happening today, of an internal 2004 report on CIA torture. In a letter to agency employees Monday morning, Panetta preemptively defended CIA practices. "The Agency sought and received multiple written assurances that its methods were lawful," he wrote. (The message was also sent to reporters.) Panetta called the information contained in the inspector general's report "old news."

The full message:

Message from the Director: Release of Material on Past Detention Practices

Today, as part of a number of Freedom of Information Act cases, the government is responding to court orders to release more documents related to the Agency's past detention and interrogation of foreign terrorists. The CIA materials include the 2004 report from our Office of Inspector General and two papers--one from 2004 and the other from 2005--that discuss the value of intelligence acquired from high-level detainees. The complete package is hundreds of pages long. The declassification process, a mandatory part of the proceedings, was conducted in accord with established FOIA guidelines.

This is in many ways an old story. The outlines of prior interrogation practices, and many of the details, are public already. The use of enhanced interrogation techniques, begun when our country was responding to the horrors of September 11th, ended in January. For the CIA now, the challenge is not the battles of yesterday, but those of today and tomorrow. It is there that we must work to enhance the safety of our country. That is the job the American people want us to do, and that is my responsibility as the current Director of the CIA.

My emphasis on the future comes with a clear recognition that our Agency takes seriously proper accountability for the past. As the intelligence service of a democracy, that's an important part of who we are. When it comes to past detention and interrogation practices, here are some facts to bear in mind on that point:

Story continues below

advertisement

* The CIA itself commissioned the Inspector General's review. The report, prepared five years ago, noted both the effectiveness of the interrogation program and concerns about how it had been run early on. Several Agency components, including the Office of General Counsel and the Directorate of Operations, disagreed with some of the findings and conclusions.

* The CIA referred allegations of abuse to the Department of Justice for potential prosecution. This Agency made no excuses for behavior, however rare, that went beyond the formal guidelines on counterterrorism. The Department of Justice has had the complete IG report since 2004. Its career prosecutors have examined that document--and other incidents from Iraq and Afghanistan--for legal accountability. They worked carefully and thoroughly, sometimes taking years to decide if prosecution was warranted or not. In one case, the Department obtained a criminal conviction of a CIA contractor. In other instances, after Justice chose not to pursue action in court, the Agency took disciplinary steps of its own.

* The CIA provided the complete, unredacted IG report to the Congress. It was made available to the leadership of the Congressional intelligence committees in 2004 and to the full committees in 2006. All of the material in the document has been subject to Congressional oversight and reviewed for legal accountability.

As Director in 2009, my primary interest--when it comes to a program that no longer exists--is to stand up for those officers who did what their country asked and who followed the legal guidance they were given. That is the President's position, too. The CIA was aggressive over the years in seeking new opinions from the Department of Justice as the legal landscape changed. The Agency sought and received multiple written assurances that its methods were lawful. The CIA has a strong record in terms of following legal guidance and informing the Department of Justice of potentially illegal conduct.

I make no judgments on the accuracy of the 2004 IG report or the various views expressed about it. Nor am I eager to enter the debate, already politicized, over the ultimate utility of the Agency's past detention and interrogation effort. But this much is clear: The CIA obtained intelligence from high-value detainees when inside information on al-Qa'ida was in short supply. Whether this was the only way to obtain that information will remain a legitimate area of dispute, with Americans holding a range of views on the methods used. The CIA requested and received legal guidance and referred allegations of abuse to the Department of Justice. President Obama has established new policies for interrogation.

The CIA must also keep its focus on the primary responsibility of protecting the country. America is a nation at war. This Agency plays a decisive role in helping the United States meet the full range of security threats and opportunities overseas. That starts with the continuing fight against al-Qa'ida and its sympathizers. There, alongside all its other contributions, the CIA is helping our government chart a new way forward on interrogation, one in keeping with the President's Executive Order of January 22nd. You, the men and women of this great institution, do the hard work and take the tough risks that intelligence and espionage demand.

I am very proud of what you do, here and abroad, to protect the United States. Your skill, courage, commitment, and focus on mission make the CIA indispensable to the nation. It is a privilege to serve with you.

Leon E. Panetta

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[charon]

One of the top priorities, one of the first items of business, for the Obama administration, should have been investigation and prosecution of war crimes from the bottom to the top. Failure to do that, failure to cut the head off the serpent, has left the serpent in a position to stymie Obama's efforts at progressive reform, including nationalized health care.

He apparently thought that he could reason with the serpent, or maybe if he went easy on them, they would reciprocate and pass the public health care plan. That was a mistake. I hope it's not too late to rectify.

[Beagle]

"The Agency sought and received multiple written assurances that its methods were lawful. The CIA has a strong record in terms of following legal guidance and informing the Department of Justice of potentially illegal conduct."

To a certain extent, I agree with Penetta. The problem is the circularity of reasoning. The DOJ and OLC opined that enhanced interrogation techniques were legal. The CIA relied on those opinions. The CIA can't be held responsible if those opinions were wrong. And the people who wrote those opinions can't be held responsible for providing a questionable legal analysis. Who is responsible?

The people at the highest levels, that's who. The people who ordered memoranda requiring a foregone legal conclusion. The people who issued orders on those memoranda. The buck stops at the fountainhead.

[psk]

And that would be at the very tip top of the previous administration. We honestly do have to take it all the way there. If we do not, we will never recover the high ground on anything as far as the world is concerned.

[charon]

They are guilty all along the line. The rationalizers, the torturers, their commanders. But none are so guilty of egregious violations of all standards of humanity as those at, as psk puts it, "the tip top."

[tonydon]

GOO, PAnetta has no credential for this position, as the old saying go don't let the door hit you n the way out.

[bipolarbear]

The problem with investigating individual CIA interogators is that they can claim they were just following orders. Holder needs to be investigating the order givers. i.e. CHENEY!! Pissing off the CIA and forming mistrust between and administration the DOJ and the CIA only makes it harder for the CIA to do its job.

If we aim our legal arrows at the lawbreakers that were in charge, (the previous administration) and investigate, charge and convict those at the top, there is no need to go after individual CIA people.

It's a dangerous precedent Cheney started when he decided to directly interfere with CIA operation.

[ssg13565]

The CIA should be put on notice right now. If anything happens to the President, they will be immediately under suspicion.

[dean719]

A Democrat with some b**ls, maybe there is hope yet

[DoctorDoctor]

as i recall, a big part of the initial justification used by cheney/bush was the "we're at war" rationale, using some of FDR's actions in WWII, which went unpunished.

a)if the detention of Japanese citizens was wrong in the '40s, which it was, since no prosecutio­n/investig­ation was conducted, the bush administration was allowed to expand the concept. if bush et al are held accountable now, perhaps we can avoid making the same mistake AGAIN. think pinochet or pol pot, for instance. what bush thought was OK was exactly what those guys were doing. and it breaks numerous international laws. apparantly, bush et al didn't give a damn. fortunately, obama et al do.

b)using the ambiguity, instructions or other directives from the bush/cheney attorney general's office was foolish and counter-indicated by the german's experience at nurenberg (sp?). "my senior officer told me to do it" just doesn't cut it. nor does an extraordinarily self-serving misinterpretation of relevant laws from a puppet attorney general's office peopled by brand new graduates of a 4th tier christian, faith-based law school (liberty u -- not quite harvard or even u.va.). those guys issued opinions that were, at best MAI (made as indicated). so it's hard to define those opinions as binding or, for that matter, exculpatory.

holder's the AG. if Obama tried to tell him what to do, he'd resign, just as Richardson did when nixon wanted him to fire employees investigating the executive branch.

[DCX2]

"The Agency sought and received multiple written assurances that its methods were lawful"

Did the individuals carrying out the interrogations ever get a chance to read any of these "assurances"? Or did they just take a superior's word for it? "Yeah, the memo says you can use this much water. Honest."

[psk]

part 3
The only way to begin repairing our reputation around the world is to finally put a stop to this illegal activity. To hold accountable all those involved and show that this will no longer be tolerated within our government. We as Americans like to hold ourselves up as the best and brightest in everything, it is time we acted like we are.

apologies for the length, but every word was needed. (imho)

[omalley313]

worth reading ...

[psk]

part 2
The only sure result of this policy has been to actively recruit more people to so called “terrorist” organizations that truly hate America and all it stands for with all their hearts. These folks will do all they can to bring our nation and its people to its knees. This policy has also guaranteed that all American citizens, soldiers in particular will suffer torture methods at the hands of these very same people who now hate us more than ever.

So what is it? Torture is against the rules for everyone but us to employ as we see fit? I think not. The law is the law; we are a nation built upon laws. Is that not what we tell the world?

As much as I would love to lay all blame for the smashing of our, and international laws, in the name of security at the feet of Former President Bush and his administration, I cannot. The congress has a fair share in all of this as well. It was their votes that helped shape the atrocities committed by our government.

This activity has taken our nation off the high road. We no longer have any right to say we are justified in any action because our government has lowered us to the same levels as the “terrorists” we are supposed to be fighting.

[psk]

part 1

Gen. George Washington was against torture or inhuman treatment of any kind imposed upon any prisoners. It has been written into our Bill of Rights, check the 8th amendment.

If that is not reason enough for our nation to not use torture, please refer to the United Nations Convention Against Torture. The Untied States signed that particular treaty on 18 April 1988 and Congress ratified it on 21 October 1994, making it the LAW of the land as well as having been International Law. Vice Chairman, Claudio Grossman, who's term expires in 2011 sits on the Committee against Torture. (oh yeah, this guy is an American Citizen, representing the U.S.)

Then of course there are the trials of Japanese officers after WWII. The American and British governments tried, convicted and hanged Japanese Officers for "Water boarding" American and British soldiers.

The entire above comments aside, unless they have re-written the military manual, torture is still a no-no in a big way within each of our military branches.

Torture has never been known to elicit the truth. It has ever only gotten the torturer tales of fancy. Inaccuracies, lies and make believe stories designed to make the torture stop. Anyone being tortured will say anything s/he believes will put an end to the pain and suffering.

Not only has this method of “enhanced interrogations” broken our own Constitutional laws and International Treaties, there is simply never an excuse or justification for its use.

[KnowzyRowzy]

See ya!

[ignorantwillyharper]

Is there a honest person in Washington that believes in the rule of law?

[charon]

Panetta is giving the torturers a pass. F the pissant pirck. He should be in jail with the rest of them.

[dj5850]

Couldn't have said it better!

[petera63]

If common sense is to be punished with jail time, then Obama has nothing to worry about.

[Stokes]

Don't waste time and money at the bottom of the ladder. Start at the top, GHWBush, Cheney, etc.
(inspired to write) Leon Panetta has scoped the value of the trade-off as nil in the eyes of the established criteria.

[Polichick66]

They have to start somewhere, and follow the chain of command to the top.