Below is a transcript of an interview by Eliot Spitzer on CNN’s “In the Arena” with Glenn Carle and Juan Cole concerning the Bush White House/ CIA attempt to destroy Cole’s reputation. I think Carle adds some new details and texture to his account beyond what was in James Risen’s NYT piece.
Let me quote here the passage at the bottom, from me, right up front:
And it’s just impossible for me to believe that the White House asked the CIA to Google me; that they were just passing along publicly available information. There must have been an implication that they should actively dig up some kind of dirt. And that is illegal and it’s extremely troubling, and I believe that the Senate Intelligence Committee, the House Intelligence Committee should open investigations, should subpoena documents, should get names, should find out what was going on, who the request came from at the White House, what’s the background of this.
I think Eric Holder, at the Department of Justice, should look into it. And I think that unless we get to the bottom of this story, we can’t be sure that there weren’t others so targeted, that other people were perhaps — their reputation was ruined for political purposes.
And we also — to tell you the truth, we can’t be sure there aren’t black cells inside the CIA that continue to behave in these ways. I mean, I think we really need to shake things up here and get to the bottom of this.
Spitzer at the end notes the CIA’s denial of Carle’s and Risen’s story (Risen has other sources besides Carle who however declined to be named). The denial is clearly dishonest and seems mainly concerned with reassuring other experts that by agreeing to speak to intelligence analysts in DC they are not thereby putting themselves under surveillance! I’d be sorry if this fiasco dried up open sources for the US intelligence community, which is often too stovepiped and inward-looking as it is.
Here is the full transcript:
CNN
June 17, 2011 Friday
SHOW: IN THE ARENA 8:00 PM EST
Bush White House Asked CIA to Gather Information on College Professor; Interview With Robert Reich
BYLINE: Eliot Spitzer, Richard Quest, Diana Magnay
GUESTS: Glenn Carle, Juan Cole, Steve Kornacki, Reihan Salam, Robert Reich, James Traub…
HIGHLIGHT: CIA gathered damaging information on an American college professor on orders from the Bush White House.
HOST: Good evening. Welcome to the program. I’m Eliot Spitzer.
Tonight — a story that smacks of the Watergate era, a tale fit for Woodward and Bernstein., explosive allegations that the CIA gathered damaging information on an American college professor on orders from the Bush White House, this because the professor’s views were critical of Bush administration policies. Sounds un-American, doesn’t it? We’ll have an exclusive interview in just a moment…
SPITZER: …
Tonight, in covert action, did the Bush White House use the CIA to spy on an American citizen who was a critic of the Iraq war? It’s a scary charge. The critic in question is Juan Cole, a controversial history professor at the University of Michigan who often wrote about his unfavorable views of Bush administration policies.
The person allegedly asked to do the spying but says he refused is Glenn Carle, the 23-year veteran of the CIA who rose to the senior ranks of the agency. He says White House officials wanted, quoting here, “to get Juan Cole.”
Glenn Carle is the CIA officer in question. He joins me for an exclusive interview. After he tells his story, Professor Juan Cole will join the conversation.
Welcome.
Glenn, let me start with you. You were asked to do something that you believed and is in fact illegal. Tell us what happened, how the request was made to you, and what followed thereafter.
GLENN CARLE, FORMER CIA OFFICER: Sometime late in 2005, I don’t remember the exact dates, it is a while ago. But sometime late in 2005, my superior returned from a meeting at the White House and called me into his office and asked me if I knew about Professor Juan Cole, who was he. I said, of course, I know who he is. We had worked together on National Intelligence Council business a number of times and then started to ask questions about lifestyle and background, in saying what you just summarized that the White House found him a severe critic and wanted to get him and I was flabbergasted.
SPITZER: You objected to the request to get Juan — to get Professor Cole and you nonetheless saw a few days later that this effort appeared to be continuing. Describe that for us.
CARLE: The following morning there was a staff meeting I had to attend. Details I can spare I think. But in attending the meeting, I had to carry a memorandum that was going to be routed to the White House I believe it was. And although I don’t know the people to whom it was destined, I do not know that.
And in this memorandum was a note on Professor Cole as I recall, four paragraphs long, describing him, his personal life. Not that he thought the Shia were doing this or the Shia were doing, or Hezbollah was this. The substance of what interested him for the National Intelligence Council, but about his personal behavior and taste and practices.
Only one of the paragraphs was objectionable. But I was stunned. So, I took it to the acting chairman of the National Intelligence Council immediately and said this is really very disturbing. You need to know about this. You need to take some action because it’s beyond my power to stop this.
He immediately did. He said watch me.
SPITZER: And was that David Gordon? Again, I know you’re hesitant to mention — was that David Gordon?
CARLE: Yes. David Gordon was the acting chairman, yes.
SPITZER: OK.
CARLE: And he — in front of me, scratched out the offending paragraph of that memorandum.
SPITZER: Now, there’s no question in your mind the memo that you read one paragraph of which you found objectionable was responsive — would have been responsive to the request to get information to get Professor Cole. This is what somebody had crafted and prepared in response to that sort of request.
CARLE: It was a response to a request for personal information about Professor Juan Cole, yes.
SPITZER: Not substantive information about his views about the Iraq war or Middle Eastern affairs but personal information that would have been deemed derogatory, somehow critical or somehow useful in an effort to discredit?
CARLE: Well, who is Juan Cole, the man, and to include inappropriate personal assessments of him or behaviors he would engage in. None of which I recall whatsoever.
SPITZER: And, clearly, just to complete the circle, David Gordon must have agreed with you because as you say –
CARLE: Absolutely.
SPITZER: — he X’ed out one of the paragraphs, coming to the same conclusion you did that it was not appropriate information to be passing along.
CARLE: Oh, absolutely. I knew him to be an outstanding professional and man of judgment and he also was the man in charge. And that’s why I went to him, telling him he needed to know about this, he needed to take measures to stop it because I was aware of this and I was unable to stop this sort of thing. And he said never, ever, would he have involvement in something like that and he would see to it that it was stopped.
SPITZER: Now, was there a further instance where you got the sense or direct evidence that there was an effort to get information about Professor Cole?
CARLE: Well, the answer is yes. One could have thought this was the episode we just talked about. This is an aberration, sort of strange and misunderstanding end of story. But a number of months later, I was about to have lunch with a colleague of mine who said, Glenn, take a look at this. He showed me an e-mail to him seeking guidance from a concerned or troubled more junior officer saying, how do I respond to this? This is bizarre — essentially was the inquiry.
This is a person that my colleague was mentoring and the request was from, as the article describes, from the front office of the agency for personal information that anybody knew about Professor Juan Cole. And I just — there I thought my goodness. This is inconceivable. This is really not just an aberration. So, I took steps, forcible as I could, to try to stop it and within my circle of knowledge, I think that I succeeded. But I, of course, don’t know what’s beyond it.
SPITZER: Can you tell us to whom you reported this at the point when you saw the second incident? Clearly, you must have concluded this was not one-off, this was not one aberrant misstep. This was a continuing course of conduct. Can you tell us to whom you reported it and therefore what paper trail or what evidence should be there to corroborate the story?
CARLE: Yes. Well, there is — you know, CIA officers don’t their work home and I have no documents or proof whatsoever. It’s just my word against the institution and other individuals, of course, which is unfortunate possibly from me. But I’m telling — everything I’m telling is exactly the truth in what happened.
There were e-mails, however, and other individuals, colleagues of mine, have said to me that they remember the events as I do, but they are unwilling to speak.
SPITZER: As you just said, this will ultimately become a test of your credibility versus the credibility of those in the agency who may want to dismiss this. So, let me just sort of lay the foundation and probe a little bit. How many years did you spend in the CIA?
CARLE: Twenty-three — well, almost 23 years I served. Full career.
SPITZER: What was the most senior position that you attained, the — your highest position there?
CARLE: Yes, I had somewhat unusual career. But I was actually an operations officer, clandestine services officer. So, most of my career, I was undercover and I was doing things I can’t really speak about.
But that’s what I did. And until my last position, which was the most senior one, to answer your question, and there I was the deputy national intelligence officer for transnational threats — a long winded term for senior most analytical position on terrorists analysis.
SPITZER: So, in the end, to put this into parlance, so we can understand, you went from being James Bond to Q.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLE: No, not Q. Q makes funny gizmos and so on. Jack, what he’s face from Tom Clancy novels, without the operational status.
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: All right. Just so we understand what you were doing.
But you left the agency on your own terms. You were not dismissed? You were not fired? There was no ongoing litigation between you and the agency?
CARLE: No. I retired, normal retirement.
SPITZER: Do you have any reason to believe there are other instances of inquiries such as the one we’ve been discussing that — you know, where the agency was asked to gather information that could be used to injure somebody’s reputation?
CARLE: Yes. Well, of course, this is the question that “The New York Times” asked me and everyone asks and would like the answer to. I have spoken to the facts that I lived them. I only know the incident concerning Professor Cole as I — as we’ve summarized it today. I don’t know what happened beyond my knowledge or sight or professional activities.
SPITZER: Do you — you know these facts. You lived them as you just said. Do you believe those facts constitute illegal behavior, the request, and the effort to gather information through the agency that could be used to damage a U.S. citizens reputation?
CARLE: Well, this is why I was shocked and why I took the steps that I did, why I said I was flabbergasted, and I hurried around the building looking for the person to challenge about it because it smothers milk in the agency. Executive order 12333, American — not American — the CIA has nothing to do with, doesn’t spy on, doesn’t collect information on, do anything concerning American citizens, unless there’s a very rigorous protocol followed.
That was not the case in this instance. This is personal information unrelated to a national security issue, and it’s clearly something that the CIA cannot engage in.
And all of my colleagues and I know that.
SPITZER: Professor Cole, I apologize. You have been more the innocent bystander in this conversation. But, obviously, what the CIA did is core of this problem.
Having heard this, having read the stories that have emerged over the last few days, what do you believe should happen to be — what should be done to pursue and investigate this?
JUAN COLE: Well, it’s clearly extremely improper and illegal for — even for the paragraphs that may have been sent over which were unobjectionable about an American citizen, the CIA shouldn’t be telling the White House about an American citizen.
And it’s just impossible for me to believe that the White House asked the CIA to Google me; that they were just passing along publicly available information. There must have been an implication that they should actively dig up some kind of dirt. And that is illegal and it’s extremely troubling, and I believe that the Senate Intelligence Committee, the House Intelligence Committee should open investigations, should subpoena documents, should get names, should find out what was going on, who the request came from at the White House, what’s the background of this.
I think Eric Holder, at the Department of Justice, should look into it. And I think that unless we get to the bottom of this story, we can’t be sure that there weren’t others so targeted, that other people were perhaps — their reputation was ruined for political purposes.
And we also — to tell you the truth, we can’t be sure there aren’t black cells inside the CIA that continue to behave in these ways. I mean, I think we really need to shake things up here and get to the bottom of this.
SPITZER: All right. Juan Cole, Glenn Carle, thank you so much for joining us.
CARLE: Thank you.
SPITZER: We’ve received a response to the allegations made by former CIA officer Glenn Carle and Professor Juan Cole.
The CIA spokesman says and I quote here, “We’ve thoroughly researched our records and any allegation that the CIA provided private or derogatory information on Professor Cole to anyone is simply wrong. We value the insights of outside experts, including respected academics, who follow many of the same national security policies that we do.”
0 Share 16 Google +1 0 StumbleUpon 1 Printer Friendly Send via email
Posted in Iraq War | Comments
Eminent National Security correspondent at the New York Times James Risen has been told by a retired former official of the Central Intelligence Agency that the Bush White House repeatedly asked the CIA to spy on me with a view to discovering “damaging” information with which to discredit my reputation. Glenn Carle says he was called into the office of his superior, David Low, in 2005 and was asked of me, “ ‘What do you think we might know about him, or could find out that could discredit him?’ ”
Low actually wrote up a brief attempt in this direction and submitted it to the White House but Carle says he intercepted it. Carle later discovered that yet another young analyst had been tasked with looking into me.
It seems to me clear that the Bush White House was upset by my blogging of the Iraq War, in which I was using Arabic and other primary sources, and which contradicted the propaganda efforts of the administration attempting to make the enterprise look like a wild shining success.
Carle’s revelations come as a visceral shock. You had thought that with all the shennanigans of the CIA against anti-Vietnam war protesters and then Nixon’s use of the agency against critics like Daniel Ellsberg, that the Company and successive White Houses would have learned that the agency had no business spying on American citizens.
I believe Carle’s insider account and discount the glib denials of people like Low. Carle is taking a substantial risk in making all this public. I hope that the Senate and House Intelligence Committees will immediately launch an investigation of this clear violation of the law by the Bush White House and by the CIA officials concerned. Like Mr. Carle, I am dismayed at how easy it seems to have been for corrupt WH officials to suborn CIA personnel into activities that had nothing to do with national security abroad and everything to do with silencing domestic critics. This effort was yet another attempt to gut the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, in this case as part of an effort to gut the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
I should point out that my blog was begun in 2002 with an eye toward analyzing open source information on the struggle against al-Qaeda. In 2003 I also began reporting on the unfolding Iraq War. My goal was to help inform the public and to present sources and analysis on the basis of my expertise as a Middle East and South Asia expert. In 2003-2005 and after I on a few occasions was asked to speak to military and intelligence professionals, most often as part of an inter-agency audience, and I presented to them in person distillations of my research. I never had a direct contract with the CIA, but some of the think tanks that every once in a while asked me to speak were clearly letting analysts and field officers know about the presentations (which were most often academic panels of a sort that would be mounted at any academic conference), and they attended. I should underline that these presentations involved small travel expenses and a small honorarium, and that I wasn’t a high-paid consultant but clearly was expected to speak my views and share my conclusions frankly. It was not a regular gig. Apparently one of the purposes of spying on me to discredit me, from the point of view of the Bush White House, was ironically to discourage Washington think tanks from inviting me to speak to the analysts, not only of the CIA but also the State Department Intelligence and Research and other officials concerned with counter-terrorism and with Iraq.
It seemed likely to some colleagues, according to what they told me, that the Bush administration had in fact succeeded in having me blackballed, since the invitations rather dropped off, and panels of a sort I had earlier participated in were being held without my presence. I do not know if smear tactics were used to produce this result, behind the scenes and within the government. It was all the same to me– I continued to provide what I believe was an important service to the Republic at my blog and I know for a fact that not only intelligence analysts but members of the Bush team continued to read some of what I wrote.
What alarms me most of all in the nakedly illegal deployment of the CIA against an academic for the explicit purpose of destroying his reputation for political purposes is that I know I am a relatively small fish and it seems to me rather likely that I was not the only target of the baleful team at the White House. After the Valerie Plame affair, it seemed clear that there was nothing those people wouldn’t stoop to. You wonder how many critics were effectively “destroyed.” It is sad that a politics of personal destruction was the response by the Bush White House to an attempt of a citizen to reason in public about a matter of great public interest. They have brought great shame upon the traditions of the White House, which go back to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, who had hoped that checks and balances would forestall such abuses of power.
32 Share 448 Google +1 0 StumbleUpon 962 Printer Friendly Send via email
Posted in Iraq War | Comments
What is it about the United States that makes for harsh prosecutions over sex crimes but lets leaders off the hook when it comes to war crimes? New York police rushed to arrest Dominique Strauss-Kahn , the head of the international Monetary Fund, on Saturday on learning of charges against him by a hotel maid of sexual assault. This quick action against a wealthy and powerful individual, seeking justice for a person at the bottom rung of the American social hierarchy, is praiseworthy. It affirms the principle that no one is above the law.
But the widows and orphans of Iraq cannot hope that the New York police would similarly frog-march George W. Bush off his first-class flight and arrest him for crimes against humanity.
Glenn Greenwald argues that the lessons of the Nuremberg trials have been forgotten and that Bush and other members of his administration should be tried for war crimes. His piece builds on earlier journalism on this subject, such as that of Jan Frel. Not only should Bush and his cronies be tried for launching an aggressive war, but many jurists want them tried for crimes against humanity such as torture, in which they have admitted engaging.
The US and other United Nations members are signatories to the United Nations Charter, which as a treaty has the force of law. Chapter 7 of the UN charter forbids war except under two conditions: 1) Self-defense or, 2) a United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing war against a regime that is posing a threat to international order.
Chaper 7, article 51 says,
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
Chapter 7, Article 42, says, after describing in article 41 economic boycotts and other non-military measures against rogue states:
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Bush had neither pretext for an Iraq War but prosecuted that war nevertheless. I.e., his war was neither self-defense nor did it have a UNSC resolution behind it affirming that invading Iraq was necessary to preserving international order. Bush’s was a lawless war of naked aggression that has left hundreds of thousands dead.
Like Frel, Greenwald quotes Benjamin Ferencz, a nonagenarian former Nuremberg prosecutor, who repeats and underlines the point that aggressive warfare is the chief human rights crime, since all other crimes committed in the course of the war issue from this decision.
I’ve been surprised to discover that many of my readers do not appear to understand that the US has treaty obligations under the UN charter, and do not know that the charter only allows war under these two conditions. The US invoked the UN framework in Korea, in the Gulf War, and in Libya, and it offers our best hope for moving beyond an international jungle where the strong fall upon the weak at will. President Eisenhower explicitly rejected the 1956 war of Britain, France and Israel on Egypt on the grounds that it was a war of aggression that violated the stipulations of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.
I agree entirely with Greenwald that it is dangerous to let members of the Bush administration off the hook for their war crimes (which go beyond the initial transgression of launching a war of aggression with no UNSC sanction). There is no difference in principle between what Bush and Cheney did and what Slobodan Milosevic did, except that we live in a hypocritical world of victor’s justice. To shield the rich and powerful makes a mockery of Chapter 7.
But I would argue that it is precisely the contrast between an action like the UNSC-sanctioned intervention in Libya and Bush-Cheney’s cowboy invasion and occupation of Iraq that helps underline how criminal the latter enterprise was.
The body that could most easily gather evidence against Bush, Cheney and others in that administration and begin the process of subpoenas is the two houses of the US Congress. But the Democratic-dominated Senate has openly eschewed prosecution. And the Republican-controlled House of Representatives would resist such a move on partisan grounds. The documentary evidence for criminal activity would surely not be so hard for our national legislature to get hold of, if the will existed to do the right thing. President Eisenhower did not hesitate to defend the UN Charter even against close allies. His like, unfortunately, would be hard to find in American politics today.
0 Share 104 Google +1 0 StumbleUpon 96 Printer Friendly Send via email
Posted in Iraq War | Comments Off
Google+