Bob Gates
& Locking You Up Forever
By Robert Parry
12/01/06 "Consortium
News" -- -- As the next Defense
Secretary, Robert M. Gates will be in charge of a new
star-chamber legal system that can lock up indefinitely
“unlawful enemy combatants” and “any person” accused of
aiding them. Yet, despite these extraordinary new
powers, his confirmation is being treated more like a
coronation than a time for tough questions.
Not
since 2003 when Secretary of State Colin Powell wowed
Official Washington with his United Nations speech on Iraq’s
WMD has there been such an awed consensus about any public
figure as there has been for former CIA Director Gates, who
is almost universally praised for his intelligence,
experience and down-to-earth style.
But
there are serious unresolved questions about Gates’s past
that the American people might want resolved before he is
entrusted with the awesome new powers that the Military
Commissions Act of 2006 puts in the hands of the Defense
Secretary.
In
1991, for reasons mostly of political expediency and
personal friendship, Gates’s last confirmation process for
CIA director never got to the bottom of allegations linking
Gates to some of the most serious national security scandals
of the 1980s, including illegal involvement in arms deals
with Iran and Iraq.
In his
memoir, From the Shadows, Gates revealed why the
inquiries were cut short when he thanked his friend, Sen.
David Boren, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, for shepherding him through the confirmation
process.
“David
took it as a personal challenge to get me confirmed,” Gates
wrote.
Boren’s chief of staff who helped limit the investigation of
Gates in 1991 was George Tenet, whose actions earned him the
gratitude of then-President George H.W. Bush, who a decade
later urged his son, President George W. Bush, to keep Tenet
on as CIA director.
Amid
all this cozy back-scratching, Gates’s alleged involvement
in illicit contacts between senior Republicans and Iranian
representatives during the 1980 hostage crisis was never
seriously vetted. Neither was Gates’s alleged participation
in arranging secret arms shipments to Iraq’s Saddam Hussein
in the early 1980s.
Though
Boren promised to pursue the so-called Iraq-gate allegations
against Gates, the Oklahoma senator never did.
Then,
regarding a purported Gates meeting with a key Israeli
intelligence officer who had linked Gates to both the 1980
Iran-hostage scandal and the later Iraq-gate operations,
Gates denied that the meeting ever took place. To prove it,
Gates supplied Boren and Tenet with an airtight alibi – for
the wrong day.
In
1991, when I pointed out this date discrepancy to the Senate
Intelligence Committee staff, they agreed that they had the
wrong day but then told me that they had simply decided to
take Gates at his word that he had not met the Israeli
intelligence officer, Ari Ben-Menashe.
New Evidence
Since
1991, however, new evidence has emerged supporting the
plausibility of Ben-Menashe’s claims.
In
January 1993, the Russian government sent then-Rep. Lee
Hamilton a report describing what the KGB’s intelligence
files revealed about the history of secret U.S. arms sales
to Iran.
According to this Russian report, CIA officer Gates joined
then-vice presidential candidate George H.W. Bush and Ronald
Reagan’s campaign chief William Casey in a clandestine
meeting with Iranian representatives in Paris in October
1980.
At the
time, President Jimmy Carter was trying to gain the freedom
of 52 American hostages in Iran whose continued captivity
sank Carter’s hopes for reelection. The hostages weren't
freed until immediately after Reagan and Bush were sworn in
on Jan. 20, 1981.
Though
the Russian report contradicted long-standing denials by
Gates and Bush about the Paris trip, Hamilton never
subjected the report to a thorough examination, nor did he
release it to the public. He simply filed it away in
unpublished records of a House task force he had headed. [I
discovered
the Russian report a couple of years later.]
In
another blow to Gates’s credibility in January 1995, Howard
Teicher, who had served on President Reagan’s National
Security Council staff in the 1980s, submitted a
sworn affidavit detailing the work of Gates and his
boss, then-CIA Director Casey, in arranging arms supplies
through Chilean arms dealer Carlos Cardoen for the Iraqis.
Again,
the Teicher affidavit was never seriously investigated, in
part because it complicated a federal prosecution of a
private company, Teledyne Industries, which had supplied
explosives to Cardoen.
When
Justice Department lawyers couldn’t readily find documents
that Teicher said should be in the Reagan archives, the
lawyers questioned Teicher’s credibility, ignoring the fact
that in 1986, NSC aide Oliver North conducted a massive
“shredding party” of NSC records about secret policies in
the Middle East and Central America.
In the
years since Gates’s last confirmation hearing in 1991, other
evidence has come along to buttress Ben-Menashe’s claims
that Gates was an active player in covert Middle East
policies and took part in clandestine operations.
Critics of Ben-Menashe have challenged his claims on the
grounds that Gates was known as a Soviet – not a Middle East
– expert and was an intelligence analyst who would not cross
over into covert operations.
But
what these critics misunderstood is that while Gates did
work in the Soviet division of the CIA’s analytical section,
his work there concentrated on Soviet policy toward the
Middle East, according to Gates’s former boss, CIA analyst
Ray McGovern. Indeed, McGovern said Gates prided himself in
being a top Middle East expert within CIA.
Gates
also didn’t confine himself to the cloistered world of CIA
analysis, even when he was in charge of the CIA’s analytical
division, the Directorate of Intelligence, in the early- to
mid-1980s.
Though
CIA analysts are supposed to focus on providing objective
intelligence and leave setting policy to the policymakers,
Gates secretly sent policy recommendations to CIA Director
Casey.
For
instance, in a December 1984 memo to Casey, Gates called for
the bombing of military targets in Nicaragua and the
overthrow of the leftist Sandinista government as the only
way to prevent a permanent “Marxist-Leninist” state on the
mainland of the Americas. [For details, see
Consortiumnews.com’s “Why
Trust Robert Gates on Iraq.”]
Besides crossing the bright line between analysis and
policy, Gates turned out to be wrong in his assessments.
After the Reagan administration rejected his plan as too
extreme, the Sandinistas eventually left power peacefully
when they lost an election. [For more on Gates’s history,
see Consortiumnews.com’s “The
Secret World of Robert Gates.”]
Tribunal Powers
The
questions about Gates’s integrity and independence stand out
in even sharper relief now because of the enactment of the
Military Commissions Act of 2006. The new law empowers
the Defense Secretary to create a parallel American legal
system, existing outside the protections of the U.S.
Constitution.
As
Defense Secretary, Gates would handpick the military judges
and set the rules for administering the system, which was
established under a law passed by Congress in September and
signed by President Bush on Oct. 17. The law allows the
jailing of both “unlawful enemy combatants” and “any person”
who allegedly helps them.
While
the new law explicitly strips non-U.S. citizens of the
habeas corpus right to a fair and speedy trial, the law
implicitly does the same to U.S. citizens in a section that
covers “any person” who “aids, abets, counsels, commands or
procures” actions by “unlawful enemy combatants."
Anyone
who is thrust into this parallel legal system is barred from
filing any motions “whatsoever” with a civilian court,
presumably preventing assertion by citizens and non-citizens
alike of habeas corpus or other constitutional
rights. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Who
Is ‘Any Person’ in Tribunal Law.”]
Given
the sweeping powers that Gates would inherent as Defense
Secretary, the Senate Armed Services Committee might want to
take a little more time before it rushes through his
confirmation.
Currently, Gates is expected to undergo gentle questioning
mostly focused on the Iraq War during pro forma
confirmation hearings on Dec. 5. According to this thinking,
his confirmation by the full Senate would follow quickly
during the lame-duck session with the Republicans still in
the majority.
But
before Gates’s confirmation by acclamation, senators might
want to consider posing the following questions:
1. In
a 1995 affidavit, former NSC official Howard Teicher put you
in the middle of arranging third-country arms shipments to
Iraq in the 1980s. Exactly what was your role in dealing
with the issue of third-country military shipments to Iraq
during the Iran-Iraq War? Were you ever approached by
Israeli representatives who voiced concerns about some of
these shipments, particularly those involving dangerous
chemicals? If so, what did you do about these Israeli
concerns? What do you know about Chilean arms dealer Carlos
Cardoen?
2. In
December 1984, you wrote a memo to CIA Director William
Casey recommending, among other things, the bombing of
military targets in Nicaragua. You warned that if your tough
recommendations weren’t followed, you envisioned a permanent
“Marxist-Leninist” state in Central America. As it turned
out, the Reagan administration rejected your advice as too
extreme and the Sandinistas surrendered power via an
election in 1990. In hindsight, do you acknowledge that your
recommendations were misguided? Since you made them when you
were in charge of the analytical division, do you believe
you overstepped your bounds by getting involved in policy
recommendations? Given the damage to U.S. national interests
that has followed the faulty intelligence on Iraq’s WMD, do
you believe it’s wise for the deputy director for
intelligence to offer detailed policy prescriptions?
3. In
a 1993 report to Rep. Lee Hamilton, the Russian government
said its intelligence files put you in a meeting in Paris in
October 1980 with Iranian representatives about American
hostages then held in Iran. At that time, you were the
executive assistant to CIA Director Stansfield Turner.
Though you denied participating in such a meeting during
your 1991 confirmation hearings, this Russian report
followed that denial. First, do you stand by your earlier
denial? And second, can you turn over to Congress records
that would verify your whereabouts during the relevant
period of mid-October 1980, particularly the weekend of Oct.
18-19?
4. On
another date for a disputed meeting between you and an
Israeli representative in New Jersey, you apparently gave
the Senate Intelligence Committee an alibi for the wrong
day, April 19, 1989, when the date of the supposed meeting
was April 20, 1989. Would you be willing to provide
documentary evidence about your whereabouts on the afternoon
of April 20, 1989, such as personal calendars or your
official schedule for that day when you were deputy national
security adviser?
5.
During your career in the CIA and your assignments to the
NSC, how many times did you travel to the Middle East? Could
you provide a list of destinations, the purposes of the
trips, and approximate dates? Do you consider yourself a
Middle East expert?
6.
Since the Military Commissions Act of 2006 contains wording
that seems to apply to “any person” who aids and abets acts
by “unlawful enemy combatants,” some American citizens fear
they might be pulled into the military tribunal system. Can
you offer categorical assurances that no American citizen
would ever be detained under this new law? Do you believe
that Congress should revise the statute to restore the
principle of habeas corpus for all detainees and to
include other traditional legal safeguards, or are you happy
with the law as is?
Robert Parry broke many of
the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated
Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy &
Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq,
can be ordered at
secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at
Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History:
Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'
Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and relevant to the story. We encourage engaging, diverse and meaningful commentary. Do not include personal information such as names, addresses, phone numbers and emails. Comments falling outside our guidelines – those including personal attacks and profanity – are not permitted.
See our complete Comment Policy and use this link to notify us if you have concerns about a comment. We’ll promptly review and remove any inappropriate postings.