National Security and Intelligence
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
|
Thursday, September 21, 2006; 1:00 PM
Washington Post intelligence reporter Dana Priest was online Thursday, Sept. 21, at 1 p.m. ET to discuss the latest developments in national security and intelligence.
Dana Priest covers intelligence and wrote "
The transcript follows.
____________________
washingtonpost.com: Dana Priest has been delayed. Please check back in later for an update on the status of today's discussion.
_______________________
washingtonpost.com: We now have an ETA of ten minutes...
_______________________
Dana Priest: Hi everyone. Thanks for your patience. I had an unexpected appointment. Let's go.
_______________________
Madison, Wis.: Do you think that the administration pushing to redefine the Geneva Conventions Article 3 is a political winner for the upcoming November elections? Or do you think that people will respect McCain, and the other moderate Republicans who are taking a stand against it more. How badly do you think McCain's opposition to these administration positions will hurt him in the Republican primary?
Thanks.
Dana Priest: I don't think it's a political winner necessarily. This is where I disagree with many of my colleagues who say Bush announced the secret prisons as a political step with the elections in mind. But the fact is, the Ds have not made an issue of them. They don't like to talk about them. They aren't' really making much of it now. There were other reasons, like the fact, just maybe, that Bush realized he could not keep the program going--legally or within the CIA--unless he got congress' explicit approval.
_______________________
Philadelphia, Pa.: There's news that Rove's promising an October Surprise, combined with ship movements to the Persian Gulf I'd say that means a military confrontation with Iran.
Is there any opposition in D.C. to uninhibited aggression by the Bush administration?
Dana Priest: In DC? You bet, it's overwhelming Democratic. But I think you mean the Washington bureaucracy. Yes, loads and loads of it, from nearly every corner, including the military, state department, economic folks who don't want more market instability, Veteran's Affairs, which can't handle the people they have now from Iraq and Afghanistan. You name it, there's opposition. Does that mean it's not going to happen? No. Not necessarily.
_______________________
Toronto, Canada: What's your take on the Arar affair? I don't know who is more to blame - Canada or the U.S. It' s a disgraceful episode.
Dana Priest: Obviously both, for different reasons. Speaking about the US for a moment, what is really stunning is that they sent him to Syria. Even if they thought he was a terrorist and didn't think Canada would pay enough attention to him, there were other options. They could have kept him in the US, shipped him to Gitmo. Instead they sent him to a country with a clear record of torture and abuse of prisoners. If the answer is, well, the Syrians promised not to mistreat him, well, on what basis would they trust that promise? And now that the Canadians have investigated, seems like less of a "states secrets privilege" if he wanted to take it back into court.
_______________________
Ava, Ill.: The Financial Times carried a report that the reason Bush brought the detainees to Gitmo was because the "jailers" at the CIA were refusing to be a part of it anymore. What are your sources saying?
Dana Priest: I'm not yet certain about the "jailers" themselves, but I have reported that CIA folks were refusing to participate in meetings where interrogations and renditions were being discussed in the last six months. So it's consistent in that way.
_______________________
Natick, Mass.: Some people have suggested that Pakistan's truce with Waziristan is designed to allow the U.S. to invade. What say you?
Also: is the Bush Doctrine now "If you shelter terrorists but are a sovereign nation, then you don't have anything to worry about"? Were Afghanistan and Iraq not sovereign nations?
Dana Priest: To the first, I don't see that. To the second, maybe it should be "If you shelter terrorists and are an ally (read: Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) then we won't invade."
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: What are your thoughts about the credibility of the October Iran attack rumors -- airstrikes in October?
I remember you thought Iraq wouldn't happen -- here's a chance to redeem yourself! (I'm kidding.)
Dana Priest: Fool you once, shame of you; fool you twice....no way.
_______________________
Dana Priest: I mean, "no way" am I predicting this one.
_______________________
Boston, Mass.: Hi Dana, why did the CIA and DOJ agree to an investigation of Valerie Plame's identity if there isn't the potential of a serious crime having been committed?
Why do so many journalists feel comfortable claiming this story is over, do they have information the rest of us do not?
Thank you.
Dana Priest: The CIA and DOJ investigated it because the mere leaking of her name was a potential crime since she was under cover. And obstruction of justice, which looks like the closest thing Fitzgerald may have uncovered vis a vis Libby, is a crime. So I don't consider it over.
_______________________
Sent him to Syria: Dana,
Atty Gen. Gonzalez claimed he was deported. But why does one deport a Canadian citizen to Syria ?
Dana Priest: He was deported. It was not a "rendition" in the classic sense, or the neo-classic sense I should say. It was technically an "expedited removal." I saw the paperwork on it. He was deported (a more vernacular term) to Syria because, US the interpretation of US immigration attorneys, he could be returned to Canada or Syria.
_______________________
Annapolis, Md.: Hi Dana, thanks for taking the question.
In regards to Arar- how can the U.S. government assert the State Secrets doctrine successfully in such a case. It seems clear that he was detained or kidnapped, sent to Syria via Jordan, and then, in all likelihood, tortured. Consequently, how could the U.S. govt defend? What possible secrets would they have to reveal that would justify those actions?
Dana Priest: The states secrets privilege, one of the most fascinating twists of the law, does not rest of the merits of a case. It rests on the government's assertion that litigating a case would necessarily mean revealing state secrets (classified information) and that the trade-off between the damage that would be done to national security and all other judicial rights of the accuser (Arar in this case, Khalid Masri in another) are not worth the trade off. So the CIA and FBI would have to admit, in other words, that they had talks with Syria, that they had communications with Canada's security service, that they had classified information upon which, they would probably claim, they based their actions.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: It seems the USG is in a position with the war on terror that if they were to capture a high value target they would publicize that fact. That being said, what are the current options if the CIA captures a HVT (not as high as bin Laden). Do you think they would take him to a secret prison or will they ship them to Guantanamo and run him through the paces there?
Dana Priest: I think maybe they would put them in one of their prisons in Afghanistan which is run by the CIA. Or there might be a black site somewhere that is being held in reserve for such an event. This would likely be in an undemocratic country with little or no rule of law as we know it. Once they go to Gitmo, they will have rights to see ICRC and restrictions on interrogations. That's now clear.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.: Are there any indications that torture really works? I had always thought that it didn't provide useful information as the person being tortured will tell interrogators anything they want to hear to end the torture. If that is the case, AND so many of the people responsible for interrogating prisoners are adamantly opposed to torture, what is the rationale of making it legal?
Dana Priest: Just think about that question. I know many people would like to think that torture does not work. If that were the answer, than you're right, there would be no reason for the CIA or others to undertake it. But that isn't the answer. The answer, as one can see in the Israel experience--which is the most lengthy one on the public record--is that torture works sometimes. And other times, as you say, you get nothing but false information. That said, the question a democratic, rule of law country must ask is not just whether it works. But what are the tradeoffs. Israel decided to forsake torture because the tradeoffs in terms of the lives of the interrogators and the moral standing of the country, made the trade off not worth it. I mean, it's kind of like saying, well, if we executed every person caught red-handed dealing drugs, then there wouldn't be a drug problem. We don't do that because of other trade offs in the equation.
_______________________
New Hampshire: Hi Dana!
It was just announced on MSNBC that President Musharraf has given a "60 Minutes" interview and divulged that Richard Armitage threatened him that the U.S. would bomb Pakistan back to the stone ages if they did not cooperate after 9/11.
Have you heard anything about this?
Dana Priest: I don't know about the interview. But yes, I do know that an American emissary was sent to tell Musharraf that the US would invade or something of that sort, if it did not cooperate. And, if my recollection is correct, the emissary was Armitage. They did sort of the same thing with Yemen. They let them believe that they would be invaded next (after Afghanistan) if they did not cooperate.
_______________________
Anonymous: How does Arar's rendition to Syria fit in with the timeline of Bush declaring Syria to be a major terrorist state?
Dana Priest: I don't think it does.
_______________________
San Francisco, Calif.: Was U.S. intelligence caught off-guard by the coup in Thailand? I seem to remember the attempted coup in Venezuela (aka Crazyland) seemed to have caught them by surprise as well.
Dana Priest: I honestly don't know. I haven't looked into it.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Good afternoon Dana; will the legal ramifications from the HP corporate espionage case have much impact on your own dealing with national security sources, or is this apples vs. oranges? Thank you.
Dana Priest: I'm hoping it's apples and oranges. But it did make me think twice.
_______________________
Princeton, N.J.: But the false info obtained through torture can also do harm. The false info supplied by Libi helped Bush get us into an insane war.
Dana Priest: Yes, I'm not disputing that at all. And I'm sure the CIA ran down many, many false leads as well.
_______________________
Ottawa, Canada: If the CIA is still able to use secret jails, as you indicated earlier, why would the Bush administration feel the need to change the interpretation of the Geneva Convention?
Dana Priest: They want the Congress to clarify its interpretation of Art III where it pertains to humiliating and degrading treatment. The administration feels it's too vague and would bind its interrogators' hands, so to speak, too much. At the same time, the administration says they are not talking about torture, but something much short of that. Others would disagree with their interpretation of torture or torture-lite, if you will.
_______________________
Anonymous: Ms. Priest, how did you get interested in national security and intelligence?
Dana Priest: Traveling overseas and studying the history of U.S. foreign relations. Then I got to cover the military for eight years and was hooked. Now I'm addicted.
_______________________
Fortaleza, Brazil: My theory is that Hugo Chavez and the Iranian president are CIA plants (or employees of Fox News), whose speeches at the U.N. were designed to make Bush's look good. What on earth was Chavez thinking? Brazil's leftist president looks conservative in comparison.
Dana Priest: Ha! I think Chavez is angling for the role Castro once had as a de factor leader of the non-aligned movement.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Hi Dana,
I'm wondering what you can say about any effect that Hayden has had on the morale of the CIA, particularly the Operations side of the Agency.
Thanks for your time
Dana Priest: It's pretty hard to tell but I think he's being given the benefit of the doubt right now. People seem more worried about the overall role of the CIA within the Intelligence Community, than on Hayden.
_______________________
Mililani, Hawaii: How close is the Taliban from retaking control of Afghanistan and should the DoD send in additional conventional forces or Special Ops to reinforce the legitimate Afghan government?
Dana Priest: Gen. Jim Jones, the NATO commander, has asked for more troops and is getting them. The Taliban are getting close to defacto control of certain areas, but not of the Kabul government.
_______________________
Albany, N.Y.: Have you been hearing about this new group within the CIA that studies political Islam? There was a column about it today by Katherine Shrader. Just curious.
Dana Priest: No, but it won't surprise me. Let's hope they are trying to keep up with the latest political trends!
_______________________
Crawford, Texas: Ms. Priest, I want to thank you for your courageous investigative reporting, and the Pulitzer was well deserved. As events unfold, and stories surface about Canadian Maher Araer and German Khaled Masri, what is your reaction? How do you maintain hope in our country with the apparent abuses by the administration, and seeming lack of checks and balance?
Dana Priest: I'm an optimist. So I think it's an indication that revelation will trump secrecy, over time, in these countries, the US included. The war on terror has made me an evangelical about the importance of a free press. I have watched the media be the most aggressive element of the system of checks and balances over the past four years (the first year not so much).
_______________________
Paoli, Pa.: Hi Dana,
Why should the CIA be in a role of interrogator? My understanding of the role of the CIA is to recruit spies, gather intelligence from those spies, analyze that intelligence, and communicate the meaning of that analysis to policy makers. If, in a para-military situation, someone from the CIA "captures a bad guy", why wouldn't they just hand that person over to either the FBI or the military and allow their hands to remain clean? It seems to me that by asking for a separate set of rules than other governmental organizations (e.g. FBI or DOD), they are asking for trouble, both now and in the future, and regardless of how they try to spin it, it's going to look like we're torturing people. It's a bad deal for the image of the United States.
Dana Priest: FBI and DOD work under narrow rules. If someone has to have dirty hands, and this administration apparently believes someone has to, then it has to be the CIA. They operate in secret so you're not supposed to know what they are doing. And they operate overseas, where US law does not always apply. Your observations about US image notwithstanding.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: What's happening with the Italian effort to extradite that CIA team?
Dana Priest: It won't happen. Trust me. They just aren't going to be able to work or travel in Europe again.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Thank you Dana.
If what we read is true and the head of Iran was one of the "students" that took our embassy, could we have had the FBI arrest him?
Dana Priest: that turned out not to be true
_______________________
Dana Priest: Thanks for sticking with it.... until next week! Dana
_______________________
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
