Among my former associates at the FBI, New York Times bestselling novelist Vince Flynn is a favorite. His protagonist Mitch Rapp, a counter-terrorism specialist for the CIA, is the talk whenever Flynn releases a new political thriller. Possibly the highest compliment any FBI agent ever paid me was when he called me “the old, ugly, domestic version of Mitch Rapp.” I wear the accolade with pride. What makes Flynn’s novels so captivating is the authenticity of his writing. In fact, at least one novel came under scrutiny when it hit a little too close to home detailing our nation’s nuclear security efforts.
His latest novel “Extreme Measures” was released last fall but once again Flynn may end up just a little too real. I won’t give away the plot but Mitch Rapp finds himself in front of a Congressional committee explaining why he needed to employ “extreme measures” to protect this nation. Sound familiar? Attorney General Eric Holder named a federal prosecutor this week to examine the abuse of prisoners during interrogations by the CIA. I wonder if Mitch will be called as a witness.
The administration has minimized the War on Terror calling it a “contingency operation” to prevent “man-made disasters.” I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised it would choose to re-investigate a subject the President has publicly said he prefers not to explore and one that has already been reviewed by federal prosecutors. Even after Holder’s announcement, White House aides declared the President “wants to look forward, not backward” at the previous administration’s policies. Forgive me if I am skeptical.
How can this latest action be anything but a political move to placate the left in Congress, the ACLU, and Amnesty International?
In “The Last Undercover” I detail many of the cases in which I was the FBI undercover agent. All were federal cases and resulted in hundreds of convictions. I am well aware of Justice Department guidelines requiring a reasonable certainty of conviction before bringing an indictment…none of this TV crap when the prosecutor indicts on weak evidence hoping to get the bad guy to cooperate during a commercial break.
So how does my experience impact my opinion of the administration’s decision? First, John Helgerson, the former CIA inspector general, who wrote the report in 2004 which was released Monday said, “I think it would be very difficult to mount a successful prosecution in any of these cases.” Then there is the matter of the law. The Statue of Limitations for most federal crimes is five years. A criminal act requires mens rea, a “criminal intent” and prosecutions require evidence. Most of the cases in the 2004 report were among the many investigated by Alexandria, Virginia federal prosecutors in which no charges were brought against anyone in the CIA. Government attorneys who reviewed these incidents cited a lack of evidence, witnesses, and even victims.
The report released on Monday cites as “abusive”… threatening the man charged with plotting the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, a Navy destroyer in which seventeen sailors were killed and thirty-nine injured. The “threat” was to bring in his mother thereby possibly inferring his female relatives might be sexually abused. At no time did the CIA interrogator bring in a female relative let alone physically abuse the man or his family. And if you think that was abusive how about staging mock executions in the room next door or worse yet blowing cigar and cigarette smoke into prisoners’ faces (doesn’t the President still smoke?). Various media outlets have referred to these tactics as “severe” even “brutal.” I must be missing something.
In February, 2007 David Passaro, a CIA contractor, was convicted of assaulting Abdul Wali, an Afghan suspected of rocket attacks on military bases. Wali died in custody. The federal prosecutors did their jobs. John Helgerson said none of the remaining cases compared in severity to the Passaro matter.
In response to Holder’s announcement this week, the CIA released internal reports calling the interrogation program “a crucial pillar of U.S. counter-terrorism efforts” and saying it “dramatically expanded our universe of knowledge on al-Qaeda’s plots.”
Granted both are Republicans but former Vice President Cheney said the CIA efforts kept the nation safer and Rep. Peter King, the top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, called Holder’s decision “disgraceful.”
Dennis Blair, the current director of national intelligence, said the interrogation techniques provided “high value information…a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” He admitted, “…the information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances…”
Michael Hayden, the former Director of the CIA said, “The use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer. It really did work.”
Even John Brennan, the President’s recently hand-picked selection to lead the administration’s interrogation policies, said in a 2007 interview regarding the Bush administration interrogation techniques, “Would the U.S. be handicapped if the CIA was not, in fact, able to carry out these types of detention and debriefing activities? I would say, yes.”
I have no problem with the administration determining what techniques will be used while it is in the White House, but this decision looks like a pure political move to appease the left-wing of the party. At the same time it has to have a chilling effect on those who are tasked with keeping us safe, fearing anything they do, even if sanctioned by the current administration might subject them to criminal liability down the road. Although most of my career was spent working criminal cases, I did interact with the CIA on several occasions. Those case officers with whom I dealt were intelligent, hardworking, and patriotic. As former Vice President Cheney said they “deserve our thanks.”
Mitch Rapp, thanks. If you do exist and need me, give me a call. Let me know what you want done. I’ve got your six. We owe you a lot!
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.