The Moral Failure of Our National Intelligence

"The temptation to tell a Chief in a great position the things he most likes to hear," Winston Churchill famously cautioned, "is the commonest explanation of mistaken policy." But perhaps an even greater failure of a leader is refusal to hear what he doesn't like. A number of competent government officials, from the White House to U.S. mission in Afghanistan, have told me that this attitude was their greatest frustration: for example, in trying to get the administration to tone down its promotion of public hysteria over a wildly overblown domestic terrorism threat, to face up to the considerable popular support for the Taliban in many areas of Afghanistan, or to deal with the murderous venality and duplicity of regional U.S. allies.

A new government report on the Bush administration's surveillance of personal commmunications reveals a familiar pattern of intellectual deafness and moral abuse of the country. As with the administration's promotion of waterboarding and other forms of torture, post- September 11 practices were implemented in defiance of existing law. On orders of the president, those in his close circle then approached second-tier government officials to elicit justifications for these practices after the fact: In November 2001, Justice Department lawyer James Yoo dutifully obliged with a legally flawed and factually inaccurate recommendation for warrantless wiretapping; in October 2002, military lawyer Lt. Col Diane Beaver readily commended "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" interrogations to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in knowing defiance of the Geneva Convention, and forcefully argued for hiding these practices from the International Red Cross. The lawyers' immediate superiors were misinformed, or not informed at all, about their underlings' recommendations, or even about the practices assessed. The president and his inner circle adopted the recommendations of Yoo and Beaver as official U.S. policy without bothering to elicit further legal opinion or consult Congress. President Bush liked what he had.

Once word did leak through about what was being done, however, other officials fought to stop the practices or at least bring them to light. In March 2004, Deputy Assistant Attorney General James Comey -- who is no slouch when it comes to zealously pursuing even the thinnest lead related to terrorism -- rushed up the steps to the hospital room of Attorney General John Aschcroft, to prevent then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalez from wangling a signature from the heavily-sedated patient to re-authorize domestic eavesdropping. Gonzalez signed the document instead, and later willfully deceived Congress about the whole business (and many other matters) when he became Attorney General. To their credit, both Comey and FBI Director Robert Mueller threatened to resign unless greater transparency and oversight were forthcoming.

In striking contrast to the rectitude of those officials who have risked their careers for the law of the land, there are the partisan stalwarts, such as Vice President Dick Cheney, who bend the law and the truth to fit their ends. Cheney's repeated claims that harsh interrogation and wiretapping "saved many thousands of American lives" are supported by no facts known to the public. And his appeal to classified evidence should be met with no greater confidence than his bogus claims about Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda acting in tandem against the United States.

Serving the aims of the Bush administration, were others who wanted to please and play with the Big Boys, like Gonzalez and Bush's first CIA director George Tenet. In December 2002, when plans to invade Iraq were being set to "go," Tenet promised the president a "slam dunk case" that would convince the public that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Tenet, though, was careful not to claim to his superiors that the evidence was in fact true, only that it would sell the war to the American people.

A telling example is over reliance on a source -- codenamed "Curveball" -- whose information was untrustworthy from the outset. German intelligence first interviewed Curveball, an Iraqi chemical engineer living in Germany, and informed the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). The DIA passed along the information to the CIA. When the CIA sought to interview Curveball, German intelligence told the CIA it was a waste of time because Curveball was "a fabricator and crazy." Tyler Drumheller, former head of the CIA European Division, told reporters that in 2002 he saw "dozens and dozens of e-mails and memos" impugning Curveball's credibility. Nevertheless, Tenet claimed that there was never a "formal memo" questioning Curveball's reliability until after then-Secretary of State Colin Powell proffered Curveball's fantasies as "facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence" in a speech to the U.N. on February 5, 2003. When Powell realized he'd been duped, and started to complain about it, he was no longer pleasing to the administration, and he resigned.

Forgotten or ignored in the fiasco were at least three hard lessons, which Reginald V. Jones, Britain's Head of Scientific Intelligence in WWII, summarized years ago in his classic, The Wizard War:

(1) It is necessary to avoid "the steady and immediate broadcasting of each... uncollated fact," and to withhold such information from political decision makers until checked because "to spread half-truth is often to precipitate erroneous action."

(2) The intelligence community must provide an "independent voice" that takes no consideration of what political decision makers may want to hear because this, as Churchill concurred, is "vital" to "the leader on whose decisions fateful events depend."

(3) Information from disaffected nationals is usually the most unreliable source on weapons or methods available to actual or potential enemies and "must always be checked." As Machiavelli noted long ago:

How dangerous it is to trust the representatives of exiles... such is their extreme desire to return to their homes that they naturally believe many things that are not true, and add many others on purpose.... A prince therefore should be slow in undertaking any enterprise upon the representations of exiles, for he will generally gain nothing by it but shame and serious injury. (Discorsi, ch. 31)

In his apologia, At the Center of the Storm, Tenet argued that errors made in the eagerness to respond to any positive indications of terrorism, no matter how paltry, were justified by a pervasive but still hidden threat from "sleeper cells" and the like. In fact, the only bona fide sleeper agent in U.S. history was Soviet intelligence officer Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher (aka Rudolph Abel), who was caught and exchanged for the CIA's U-2 pilot Gary Powers in 1962. Yet Tenet continued to insist even after leaving office that the U.S. is awash with "sleeper cells" -- a wolf cry still widely echoed in the media.

But what of the decent men and women whose public profile is not high enough to force the righting of a wrong by threatening to resign, and who are bound by law from not revealing any information that could contradict official policy? There are many of these people at all levels of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies who are faced with an almost tragic choice: resign into oblivion or continue to work for the common good but inside the belly of the beast.

Consider the case of Phil Mudd. Early last month, Mudd, President Obama's choice for intelligence chief at the Department of Homeland Security, withdrew from consideration over Congressional doubts about his knowledge of the CIA's "harsh interrogation" of terrorism suspects. I have in this forum elsewhere denounced the Bush administration's use of such techniques as criminally immoral forms of abuse that undermine the principles of due process of law and protection from cruel and unusual punishment -- Enlightenment principles that, for the first time in human history, established the sovereignty and integrity of each individual body and mind, and which gave rise to the founding of our Republic. But the Phil Mudd I've known in several encounters, from Washington to Riyadh, never conveyed support for torture of any kind.

On the contrary, Mudd's principal argument to leaders and law enforcement officials around the world is that the best way to end terrorism is to give hope to the young. On March 10, 2008 he confirmed to me for the public record: "Terrorism is not only a problem of ideology or religion but a global virus that attacks young people who have lost hope. I think there is a fairly strong correlation between hope and extremism. We have to provide hope." I watched him wince at the idiocies uttered by others about some central terrorist command and control of "sleeper cells," "brainwashing," "recruitment" and other nonsense but, as with torture, his only choice was to keep silent in public or cease serving the nation with his talent.

This insightful man may be paying a political price that I hope will not cost the country. How could President Obama drop Phil Mudd at the slightest doubt about his possible knowledge of torture, but let Guantánamo operate even a moment longer, where torture has been indubitable? If the Bush years taught us anything, it's that when petty politics play with moral principles, the nation's standing is undermined and society wobbles.

Comments

[blindhog]

Unfortunately, you are right.

Our schools are failing our children, we are failing ourselves and we are failing our children.

I don't doubt the power of advertising, but we do have free will. We can choose to watch wholesome shows. We can choose to be informed and demand our media dig for the truth. To a major extent we can choose to put wholesome food in our mouths. And we can demand a change in the curriculum of our schools. We can vote.

Unfortunately. collectively, we have become a moral failure. More and more are realizing this and hopefully, with EVERYONE'S support, we will right this ship of state we call the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

[pithy]

I'm feeling pretty hopeless about this country - and am experiencing some stirrings of radical thinking. I'm wondering why none of us is out in the streets about the wheelbarrows full of our cash going to banks. I'm thinking about saying the heck with paying on my Citibank credit card, and two others that just raised my rates for no reason other than "they could."

I'm depressed about how gutless I think Obama is - and I voted for him, and cried with joy when he made it. But he has yet to stand up to ANYBODY, really, that could make a positive difference in the lives of most of us. It's all placating and negotiating - why? - the Dems could stride forward and make some important changes - but no, they're being weenies as usual.

The problem with becoming really radical is that I did it already, in the 1960s, and I'm tired. Where's our youth? Why aren't they marching, singing, doing sit-ins, rolling cop cars?

I am bummed.

[humanbeing-rick]

Thank you for the great report, Scott Atran. We need more reporting like this.
A society that cannot learn from it's history, and it's mistakes, is doomed to failure.
How many times must we allow despots to gain control and have their way over us?
When will we ever learn? Is the answer still blowing in the wind?

It is truly amazing that Bush got away with what he did. It scares me to think that any madman who gets elected could get away with running rough shod over our constitution and our people.

[jmpurser]

What an excellent article on the true character of the problem we now have with our intelligence services.

[Rich Hosking]

Our democracy is failing, and in the typical "big" American way.
Congress in no way represents the will of the public. Within the government agnecies (SEC regulation anyone?) the law is not even followed. Between the CIA, NSA, and other covert agencies, we were flirtting with a shadow government, now joined by the VPs office, apparently.
I would be shocked if this were not just the tip of the iceberg.

Could things really get any worse for citizens?...

*rhetorical* question...

[virginiascientist]

You know you can trust information from a source code-named "curveball"

[KT2468]

Past executive branch officials who acted to thwart the US Constitution must be punished to deter future executive branch officials doing the same thing.

That Obama doesn't want them punished rings alarm bells.

Why be against punishing past officials? Does Obama want to repeat what Bush did? Does Obama want to reserve the right to violate US law and the US Constitution the way Bush did?

[TXfemmom]

They were willing to strangle everything about democracy to keep democracy safe.

[Godweiser]

Yeah, it's sort of like a parent that's so afraid of their kid being kidnapped that they deprive their kid of a normal lifestyle and raise them like veal in the basement.

It's what happens when paranoia runs the show. Paranoia's instinct is to go immobile and lock things away so they're 'safe.'

[HelloFunnyWorld]

Hello Mr.Atran,
Thank you for this piece.

Yes, seems there's no getting away from the knowledge that while the Middle Class is busy with work,job,home and family - "second-tier government officials (or any other official) elicit justifications for these practices after the fact" !! A deeply dishonest and morally irresponsible practice that has become common place, natural as breathing and hard to 'scrub' out.

[mamalisa38]

George W. Bush, April 4,2004, "Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires - a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

Out of his own mouth he is admitting that what he had been doing since shortly after 9/11 was against the law. Lock him up and throw away the key and take Cheney and the rest of the cabal with him.

[iskra]

Moral failure from the party of "Values". How can that be?

Let's face it, out of one side of their mouth they promoted 'family values' and flogged the religious inspiring issues of abortion, gays and dignified death while out of the other side of their mouth they stole Habeas Corpus, put in wiretaps, lied us into a war (or two).

Those issues don't bother the church so it's no problem.

We somehow have to stop letting the right pretend they have morality and values based on a handful of hot-button issues while ignoring morality on other fronts.

We need to put this stuff into the light and prosecute everyone who made these decisions. Otherwise we're going to hear about values again in 4 years from the same crowd.

[BluestateGuyInTX]

They are not even good on their hot button issues. Infidelity, same sex bathroom encounters, and chasing young staffers is a way of life for them.

[modwiz]

Moral failure seems to the be the new, or not so new, theme of our government. I feel doomed.

[petef59]

Maybe the mix of right-wing, business and religious 'leaders' into the Republican Party, all of which are non-democratic, and a wimpy electorate lead to corruption? Not to mention prostituting corporate lobbyists.

[Marlyn]

military lawyer Lt. Col Diane Beaver readily commended "cruel, human, and degrading" interrogations ???

TYPO?
inhuman

[JanusDaniels]

Inhuman? No.
Does any animal torture? No. Only we humans torture.
However inadvertently, "human" is correct.
Torture is human.

[faceplant]

Dubious assertion. Ever seen a cat seriously abusing a bug or a lizard it isn't going to eat?

[BluestateGuyInTX]

Animals don't torture? My cat makes Cheney and the entire CIA look like Mother Theresa when he gets a gecko or a bird.

[JohnHKennedy]

"a wildly overblown domestic terrorism threat,"

The Bush Administration committed many serious crimes from Torture to Lying to Congress about non-existent WMDs in Iraq. The Intelligence Community gave Bush and Cheney cover while they did this. A major investigation by Congress of all of the intelligence agencies is due, especially the CIA which is close to a rogue agency.

This must be investigated
IN PUBLIC CONGRESSIONAL COMMISSION HEARINGS
and all violations of law and abuses of power prosecuted.
Keep the pressure on the Democrats to investigate and Prosecute.

SIGN THE PETITION
calling for a special prosecutor at ANGRYVOTERS.ORG

http://ANGRYVOTERS.ORG

[JEP57]

"The Bush Administration committed many serious crimes from Torture to Lying to Congress about non-existent WMDs in Iraq."



I believe Clinton, other Democrats, and other governments around the world saw the same intellegence that the Bush administration saw and stated that they believed that Saddam had WMD, and it was based on the original flawed intellegence, not on Bush's take on it. So why is it that it's just Bush who lied and no one else. And why would he lie for no good reason, especially since he got nothing but grief going to war and gained nothing. A president has to make decisions based on what he believes about something at the time and if it turns out to be wrong, it goes with the territory.

[Synoia]

Hans Blix and the United Nations Inspections, those with the best knowledge, did not believe Saddam has WMD. They were ignored.

Why do you continue to repeat this canard?

[petef59]

A president who is not an ideaologue could do that, not GW Bush.

[charon]

There were other people in other intelligence agencies in Europe and elsewhere who were pushing the idea that Saddam had WMDs. Some of them had hidden agendas, some were just mistaken, and some believed claims that were pumped up, by the US mostly, into facts without any solid evidence to back them up. The US, in turn, quoted the other believers in unsupported claims as proof that the claims were indeed valid facts.

This indicates that the administration had hidden agenda as well. Interestingly, I believe the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the neocon manifesto, lays out securing the oil lands and the elimination of Saddam as two necessary goals for America to retain world domination in the 21st century. Perhaps enacting that manifesto is the motivation for some of the Bush administration's actions after 9/11, including the Iraqi invasion, torture, and domestic surveillance.

On the other hand, some of it may have just been the outcome of an attack on the US at a time when pathologically paranoid people (Cheney, et al) were in power, and who reacted in a psychotic (albeit methodical) manner after America was attacked on 9/11. I suppose we may learn more in the future, if America has one. In the meantime, it is obvious, no matter how they try to hide or obfuscate it, that serious crimes were committed against the US and humanity by these people.

[newleaf]

Bush had the desire to be Commander-In-Chief, for his legacy - whatever the cost.

[nellyb stl]

Who really gets hurt in their 'magic wars' - see Women, War & Peace - PBS