Michael Scheuer Watch #3: Innocent Until Proven Guilty
10.23.2007 - 10:46 AMWe already have incontrovertible evidence that former CIA officer Michael Scheuer, who is now busy with a career equally divided between casting aspersions on American Jews and making a fool of himself, was incompetent at his job running the agency’s Osama bin Laden desk in the 1990’s, and was seen as such by those in charge.
Do we now have evidence of something else?
The Danish daily Politiken ran a story on Sunday reporting that “CIA renditions in Europe date back as far as the mid-1990’s.” The term “renditions” refers to the agency’s highly secret practice, some details of which have previously leaked out, of extraditing terrorism suspects from one foreign state to another for purposes of interrogation and prosecution.
Politiken went on, according to an AP summary, to provide specifics, including the fact that in 1995 U.S. agents seized an Egyptian by the name of Abu Talal, a senior member of the Egyptian terrorist organization al-Gama’a al-Islamiya, who had been granted political asylum in Denmark. He was reportedly nabbed while visiting Croatia and was turned over to Egypt, where he may have been executed.
Along with other unidentified CIA officials, Politiken cites Michael Scheuer as a source for this information, which is now stirring up anti-Americanism in Denmark.
CIA officers sign an oath not to disclose classified information when they take employment in the agency. The oath holds for life. If they want to talk about things they learned in the course of their work, they need to obtain CIA clearance first.
The Politiken story thus raises a number of questions:
1. Is the story accurate?
2. Assuming it is accurate, was the information about the rendition of Abu Talal classified?
3. Assuming it was classified, and that Scheuer, as opposed to the other unidentifiied CIA officials, was the primary source, did he have the CIA’s permission to talk about it?
4. Assuming he was the primary source and he did not have permission, and that the two preceding questions are answered in the affirmative, was a crime committed here?
Lawrence Franklin, a Defense Department official, was recently sentenced to more than twelve years in prison for leaking government secrets to two officials of AIPAC. Scheuer’s retired status would not seem to alter the basic elements of the crime. Title 18, Section 793 (d) of the United States Code makes liable for punishment “whoever . . . willfully communicates, delivers, [or] transmits” national-defense information “to any person not entitled to receive it.”
So here is a brace of final questions:
5. If the elements of a crime are in place, will be there an investigation? And is anyone at the CIA or the Department of Justice or in Congress paying attention?
If any readers can help me connect these dots, I would welcome hearing from them. Either post a comment below or, for private correspondence, write to letters@commentarymagazine.com and put Connecting the Dots in the subject line.
A complete guide to other items in this Michael Scheuer Watch series can be found here.
| »Back to Connecting the Dots | »Back to Commentary |
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:46 PM
What is “national-defense information”? Karl Rove told Matthew Cooper of Time that Joe Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, but apparently he didn’t break any laws, as he neither revealed her name nor was aware of her classified status. This is an old rendition case. Why the difference?
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:32 PM
“…he didn’t break any laws, as he neither revealed her name nor was aware of her classified status. This is an old rendition case. Why the difference?”
I think you just answered your own question Ari. If Scheuer revealed the name, details of the operation, and knew it was classified info when he revealed it, then you have a qualitative difference. Seems pretty self-explanitory to me. Or were you just snarking at Rove?
P.S. “National Defense Information” would be information vital to national defense. Such as how the CIA and the US govt. apprehend and contain threats to our national security abroad. Often it is not only the information itself which is important to operational capabilities, but it’s remaining secret is vital to ongoing and future operations.
I don’t know…the more I think about it, the less I think you were asking a serious question.
October 24th, 2007 at 11:12 AM
Eh? I’ve seen video of Scheuer testifying before Congress (it has been a while, I don’t remember which house) about the rendition program. This is incredibly old news. He ran much of the program under Clinton and is pretty unapologetic about it. I’m not sure how he can be charged with leaking information when it came from an official source originally.
That said, if anyone can dig up the video (I saw it on CSPAN), it is worth a watch. Many Democrats tried to get Scheuer to attack the Bush administration over the war and over rendition and he didn’t fall for the bait, even going as far as to hit back at some of his questioners. The only exchange I really remember is when a Democrat asked him whether the rendition program would cause a rift in relations with Europe. Scheuer replied that he frankly didn’t care about what Europe thought - his job was to protect American lives, and those were more important to him than hurt feelings in Europe.
I may not like Scheuer’s politics or opinions on Israel, but to say he was incompetent is a bit of a stretch. His unit came up with several ways to get bin Laden such as the well known aborted raid on Tarnak Farms. All were shot down by Clinton, Berger, or Clarke.
October 24th, 2007 at 11:45 AM
Sir,
Once again, I thank Mr. Schoenfeld and Commentary for helping to broadcast the fact that CIA has done its part to successfully defend America against its Islamist enemies for more than 15 years. This, of course, also helpfully undercuts the anti-CIA and anti-American lies that Mr. Schoenfeld’s own child-like and defamatory writings about CIA deliberately have made current around the world. The CIA’s rendition program — which I helped author, and then managed for almost four years — continues to be the U.S. government’s single most successful, perhaps only sucessful counterterrorism program, and Americans are very much safer with the likes of Abu Talal off the street. Americans generally — and any small part of Mr. Scheonfeld that may be American — owe the courageous men and women of CIA an eternal debt for running the rendition program so superbly, and thereby somewhat reducing the Islamist threat that current U.S. foreign policies — including and perhaps especially unqualified support for Israel — are motivating.
In regard to “stirring anti-Americanism in Denmark” and elsewhere, one would have hoped that Mr. Schoenfeld would have had the frankness to admit that it is his writings; the writings and words of other “Americans” — Podhoretz, Boot, Woolsley, Horowitz, Pipes, etc.; and the policies of the Bush Administration that have “stirred anti-Americanism” around the world. This failure to be honest, however, should not come as a surprise. If there is one thing that Mr. Schoenfeld and his Neoconservative colleagues know less about than the world outside America, it is the history, character, and values of Americans. If they knew anything about these factors, they presumably would not have so stupidly dealt themeslves an ultimately losing hand. They would have known that most Americans have no interest whatsoever in wasting their treasure and getting their soldier-children killed in fighting other peoples’ wars, especially other peoples’ religious wars.
Respectfully,
Michael F. Scheuer
Falls Church, VA
October 24th, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Sir,
What a clever means of censorship! But it is not suprising, I suppose, that you would use censorship to protect Mr. Schoenfeld, who would have nothing to say if he could not say immoderate and scurrilous things about the character of anyone who disagrees with him, Commentary, the Neocons, or Israel.
Respectfully,
Michael F. Scheuer
Falls Church, VA
October 24th, 2007 at 6:45 PM
Sir,
I write to apologize for the second note that I sent to you today. I thought that you were asking me to “moderate” my comments before they were posted. I had never seen the word “moderation” used in the manner you used it on my first note, and I jumped to the wrong conclusion. I am at times very literal.
Respectfully,
Michael F. Scheuer
Falls Church, VA
October 26th, 2007 at 9:17 AM
Mike: Not literal enough, clearly. Try answering even one of Gabe’s questions above? Or come out and deny that you leaked the info about the Abu Talal rendition.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:48 AM
Assuming it’s not some nefarious, jewish scheme, on the part of Mr. Schoenfeld, those consecutive posts by Mr. Scheuer are absolutely hilarious.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Mr. Marquez,
Don’t be too hard on Gabe. If he doesn’t spice things up ASAP, John P. Normanson will boot him out the Commentary door quicker than you can whine, “Daddy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”