FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Forgery, Fakery and Fatigue (Scandal, That Is)

by DAVID REMINGTON

Okay, quick show of hands:  who was surprised by the recent “revelation” in Ron Suskind’s new book, The Way of the World:  A Story of Truth and Hope in an age of Extremism, that the Bush White House directed the C.I.A. to forge a letter from the Iraqi head of intelligence to Saddam Hussein designed to portray a false link between the September 11 attacks and Iraq?

That’s what I thought.  Unless you’ve been living under a rock or otherwise hopelessly deluded by the endless stream of neocon propaganda sludge, this latest from Suskind is just another tendril in the dark churning cloud of villainy the Bush Administration has left in its wake.

If I may steal from the Bard, there’s the rub.  Has the public grown so inured with reports of the lies, scandals, fabrications, and bizarre schemes that have dribbled almost daily from this White House, that this story be greeted with a large, collective yawn?   That may well be the case, but there are legal and logistical implications to this latest bit of Keystone Cop-style cloak and dagger plot that may give it legs.

According to Suskind, high-level Bush Administration officials ordered the C.I.A. to forge a hand-written letter purportedly from Tahir Jalil Habbush, Saddam’s intelligence chief, to Saddam, indicating, among other things, that Mohammed Atta, infamous September 11th hijacker, had been trained in Iraq.  The letter was dated July 1, 2001, but its “existence” reported in late 2003, at a time when the United States was still fumbling around searching for non-existent WMD’s.  This bogus letter came in handy to supply a much-desired justification for attacking Iraq, and naturally, influence U.S. public opinion.  The story of the letter was picked up and reported with orgasmic glee by such towering journalistic giants as the Fair and Balanced-Meister himself, Bill O’Reilly.

Now, even assuming a Congress that actually cared about the Constitution and the Rule of Law, and congressional leadership with the testicular fortitude to pursue the matter, the reign of mad King George will soon be ending, and there likely is not time to the realize the blessings of this revelation in the short time remaining in this presidential term.  Yet, this story could very well survive the end of the current administration and become a gift that keeps on giving.

Ron Suskind speculates that this flimsy scheme could very well violate a federal statute prohibiting the C.I.A. from pursing covert activities designed to influence public opinion or the media.  When directed by the White House, the deliberate violation of this law is a potentially impeachable offence.

The statute Suskind is referring to is 50 U.S.C § 413b Presidential approval and reporting of covert activities.  This section of law details the circumstances under which the president may approve covert activities of the C.I.A.  It also lists requirements for reporting to Congress and congressional oversight.  More specifically, 50 U.S.C. § 413b(f) reads, “No covert action may be conducted which is intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media.”

If this White House scam is proven, we can be certain that the Bush Administration, or its legal defenders, will attempt to scuttle any investigation or prosecution.  The road blocks thrown up will likely be variations of the following, all of which could easily fall against the hand of any reasonably diligent investigator or prosecutor:

Statutory Interpretation

One angle for Bush Administration defenders is to claim simply that the statute does not apply to the forged letter.  After all, the U.S. had already invaded Iraq, and besides, the forgery was developed to influence international, not domestic opinion.

Nice try, as they say, but this approach is transparently evasive, and well, let’s face it, lame.  There is no question that public opinion was turning by late 2003, and the Bush Administration certainly desired a little public relations pick-me-up.  It was also clear that the story would make into the U.S. media and be used by the war’s defenders.

Executive Privilege

Always a favorite of tyrannical executive branch leaders, the Bush Administration, or its legal successors are almost certain to trot out this old horse.  The problem is that Executive Privilege, when applied, is generally seen as a shield against those seeking to pierce the wall of confidence between the executive branch and its top advisors.  Without it, so the story goes, presidents would be constrained from seeking frank advice.  By the same token, those advisers would be loath to engage in frank discussions with the executive, fearful that their words could someday make it in to the public domain.

Again, in the forged letter scenario, the Executive Privilege argument falls flat.  Clearly the claim would not be used as a shield, but as a sword to justify actually directing a federal agency to engage in potentially illegal behavior.  Further, Section 413b Subsections b and c explicitly provide for reporting to Congress of presidential approvals of covert activities.

Executive Privilege has just left the building.

National Security

Another horse, older and more tired than Executive Privilege, would be almost sure to raise its wizened head in the event of an investigation or prosecution.  Bush Administration defenders would argue that such information cannot be discussed in public in the interest of national security.  Now, courts have been historically kind to presidents and stretched this concept about as thin as it can go without breaking.  However, the same weaknesses that apply to the Executive Privilege “defense” apply to the National Security argument.  One just cannot escape the fact that if the concocted forgery scam is true, it was carried out in direct violation of a specific federal statute created to curtail just such behavior.  And again, the provisions for congressional oversight belie any claim that activity of this nature could not be investigated.

As the days of the Bush Administration come to a close, it will be interesting to see where this story goes.  Congress has the tools to flesh out the facts, and the legal footing to push back against the standard administration stonewalling.  Whether Congress will do its job remains to be seen.

In the weeks and months to come more information will likely emerge about the forged letter scam.  As more facts come to light, it seems more and more possible that Ron Suskind’s revelation is true (see Joe Conason’s piece in Salon, New Evidence Suggest Ron Suskind is Right).

In the meantime maybe we can dream that finally this is the one.

David W. Remington, J.D., a former law professor, works as legal counsel in private industry in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. He can be reached at: drem1960@yahoo.com
 

Your Ad Here
 

 

 

 

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
February 24, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Exxon’s End Game Theory
Pierre M. Sprey - Franklin “Chuck” Spinney
Sleepwalking Into a Nuclear Arms Race with Russia
Paul Street
Liberal Hypocrisy, “Late-Shaming,” and Russia-Blaming in the Age of Trump
Ajamu Baraka
Malcolm X and Human Rights in the Time of Trumpism: Transcending the Master’s Tools
John Laforge
Did Obama Pave the Way for More Torture?
Mike Whitney
McMaster Takes Charge: Trump Relinquishes Control of Foreign Policy 
Patrick Cockburn
The Coming Decline of US and UK Power
Louisa Willcox
The Endangered Species Act: a Critical Safety Net Now Threatened by Congress and Trump
Vijay Prashad
A Foreign Policy of Cruel Populism
John Chuckman
Israel’s Terrible Problem: Two States or One?
Matthew Stevenson
The Parallax View of Donald Trump
Norman Pollack
Drumbeat of Fascism: Find, Arrest, Deport
Stan Cox
Can the Climate Survive Electoral Democracy? Maybe. Can It Survive Capitalism? No.
Ramzy Baroud
The Trump-Netanyahu Circus: Now, No One Can Save Israel from Itself
Edward Hunt
The United States of Permanent War
David Morgan
Trump and the Left: a Case of Mass Hysteria?
Pete Dolack
The Bait and Switch of Public-Private Partnerships
Mike Miller
What Kind of Movement Moment Are We In? 
Elliot Sperber
Why Resistance is Insufficient
Brian Cloughley
What are You Going to Do About Afghanistan, President Trump?
Binoy Kampmark
Warring in the Oncology Ward
Yves Engler
Remembering the Coup in Ghana
Jeremy Brecher
“Climate Kids” v. Trump: Trial of the Century Pits Trump Climate Denialism Against Right to a Climate System Capable of Sustaining Human Life”
Jonathan Taylor
Hate Trump? You Should Have Voted for Ron Paul
Franklin Lamb
Another Small Step for Syrian Refugee Children in Beirut’s “Aleppo Park”
Ron Jacobs
The Realist: Irreverence Was Their Only Sacred Cow
Andre Vltchek
Lock up England in Jail or an Insane Asylum!
Rev. William Alberts
Grandiose Marketing of Spirituality
Paul DeRienzo
Three Years Since the Kitty Litter Disaster at Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
Eric Sommer
Organize Workers Immigrant Defense Committees!
Steve Cooper
A Progressive Agenda
David Swanson
100 Years of Using War to Try to End All War
Andrew Stewart
The 4CHAN Presidency: A Media Critique of the Alt-Right
Edward Leer
Tripping USA: The Chair
Randy Shields
Tom Regan: The Life of the Animal Rights Party
Nyla Ali Khan
One Certain Effect of Instability in Kashmir is the Erosion of Freedom of Expression and Regional Integration
Rob Hager
The Only Fake News That Probably Threw the Election to Trump was not Russian 
Mike Garrity
Why Should We Pay Billionaires to Destroy Our Public Lands? 
Mark Dickman
The Prophet: Deutscher’s Trotsky
Christopher Brauchli
The Politics of the Toilet Police
Ezra Kronfeld
Joe Manchin: a Senate Republicrat to Dispute and Challenge
Clancy Sigal
The Nazis Called It a “Rafle”
Louis Proyect
Socialism Betrayed? Inside the Ukrainian Holodomor
Charles R. Larson
Review: Timothy B. Tyson’s “The Blood of Emmett Till”
David Yearsley
Founding Father of American Song
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail