Britain's Homeland Security Chief Defends Post-9/11 Actions

Our idea of torture is when the cable goes out or a slow Internet connection. But seriously, MI5--the UK's domestic counter-intelligence and security agency--is under investigation (sound familiar?) for allegedly outsourcing the torture of terror suspects. MI5's chief had this to say recently:

Jonathan Evans, the head of MI5, has defended Britain's decision to co-operate with foreign intelligence agencies accused of torture in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

Mr Evans, the director-general of MI5, said British lives had been saved as a direct result of intelligence received from overseas agencies in the years following the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

Speaking on Thursday night at a private event at Bristol University to mark MI5's centenary, he said they would have been "derelict in our duty" if they had not worked with foreign agencies in countering the threat from al-Qaeda.

Mr Evans acknowledged that contacts with agencies in countries with standards and practices "very far from our own" had posed "a real dilemma" for the service, but insisted he had "every confidence" in the way his officers dealt with them.

His comments come at a time when MI5 is facing a series of claims through civil courts that it colluded in the mistreatment of suspects held overseas, as well as an unprecedented investigation by the Metropolitan Police.

While he could not comment directly on the allegations, he said that it was "a very clear and long established principle" that MI5 did not collude in torture or solicit others to torture on its behalf.

However he said that events in the aftermath of the 9/11 had to been seen in the context of the times, when the UK and other Western countries were faced with a terrorist threat that was "indiscriminate, global and massive"...

The dilemma MI5 faced was whether to work with those security services which had experience of dealing with al-Qaida on their own territory, or risk cutting off a potentially vital source of information that could prevent attacks on the West.

"In my view we would have been derelict in our duty if we had not worked, circumspectly, with overseas liaisons who were in a position to provide intelligence that could safeguard this country from attack," Mr Evans said.

Separately, an FBI official identified the top three terrorism threats in the Missouri area (and perhaps by extension the entire country):

• fundraising for terrorist activities
• recruiting individuals to send overseas for terrorist training
• gang activity
  

Obama to Appont Terrorist Czar?

How does an administration respond when its domestic agenda verges on imploding? It's generally called "Operation Change The Subject," through a manufactured scandal and a related witchhunt.

The Obama administration launched a criminal investigation Monday into harsh questioning of detainees during President George W. Bush's war on terrorism, revealing CIA interrogators' threats to kill one suspect's children and to force another to watch his mother sexually assaulted.

At the same time, President Barack Obama ordered changes in future interrogations, bringing in other agencies besides the CIA under the direction of the FBI and supervised by his own national security adviser. The administration pledged questioning would be controlled by the Army Field Manual, with strict rules on tactics, and said the White House would keep its hands off the professional investigators doing the work.

Despite the announcement of the criminal probe, several Obama spokesmen declared anew—as the president has repeatedly—that on the subject of detainee interrogation he "wants to look forward, not back" at Bush tactics. They took pains to say decisions on any prosecutions would be up to Attorney General Eric Holder, not the White House.

Monday's five-year-old report by the CIA's inspector general, newly declassified and released under a federal court's orders, described severe tactics used by interrogators on terror suspects after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Seeking information about possible further attacks, interrogators threatened one detainee with a gun and a power drill and tried to frighten another with a mock execution of another prisoner.

It remains to be seen if there is any legal culpability on the part of the interrogators, but this administration has a unique approach to homeland security: try to release the bad guys, and prosecute the (arguably) good guys. And harsher techniques have been on display in any given episode of The Shield.

AG Holder tapped New Haven, CT, career federal prosecutor John Durham to conduct the initial investigation into whether there is enough evidence to warrant a full investigation of whether current or former CIA employees violated anti-torture or other laws while questioning high-value terror detainees.

Writing in the Washington Post, former CIA general counsel Jeffery Smith provides six reasons why such prosecutions would not be in the national interest:

•These techniques were authorized by the president and approved by the Justice Department. The relevant committees of Congress were briefed. Although the Justice Department's initial legal opinions were badly flawed, the fact remains that the agency responsible for interpreting and enforcing the law said the techniques were "legal." That alone will make prosecutions very difficult.

•the CIA provided the inspector general's report to the Justice Department in 2004. Justice has not prosecuted any CIA officers but did successfully prosecute a contractor who beat a detainee to death, an incident that was initially reported to the department by the CIA...Prosecutions would set the dangerous precedent that criminal law can be used to settle policy differences at the expense of career officers.

• after Justice declined to prosecute, the CIA took administrative action, including disciplinary action against those officers whose conduct it deemed warranted such responses.

•prosecuting CIA officers risks chilling current intelligence operations.

• prosecutions could deter cooperation with other nations. It is critical that we have the close cooperation of intelligence services around the world.

• President Obama has decisively changed the policies that caused so much damage.

Apparently the administration may continue the controversial rendition policy.