The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Remembering John Rizzo
The CIA's long-time acting general counsel, John Rizzo, died suddenly earlier this month. Lawfare published my tribute to the man, reproduced below.
John Rizzo and I shared a path that goes back more than 50 years. We had parallel careers in the intelligence community and then in private practice at Steptoe & Johnson, but we first met as undergrads at Brown. John used to joke that this accounted for our good working relationship. The 1960s gave us each a bottomless fund of kompromat.
In fact, the real secret was John's deep reserve of institutional wisdom disguised as tart irony. In this regard, John's book, "Company Man," is as true to the man as any memoir ever written. It captures his refusal to take himself too seriously while taking with utmost seriousness his responsibility to apply the law to intelligence operations. For decades he was the last word on what CIA operatives could and could not do within the law. He knew that these judgments were as much about political prognostication as about applying abstract principles of law, and that critics of the American intelligence agencies would always second-guess his conclusions.
So he clearly foresaw the political winds that would prevent his formal promotion to CIA general counsel, though he had probably been the agency's de facto top lawyer longer than anyone who actually held the title. He knew that using harsh interrogation techniques would sooner or later make the agency vulnerable to claims of lawlessness and torture. He may not have been convinced that the techniques in question would be crucial to preventing another attack or defeating Al-Qaeda, but he was clear that the final call should not be made by lawyers. He threw everything into the effort to give the nation's leaders room to make the decision, including, it turned out, his own reputation.
I never heard John complain about the outcome of that chapter in his career. He was disappointed but not surprised by the attacks on the agency or on him. I think he was satisfied that he'd done his best to protect his institution from the kind of scandal that had engulfed it so often in the past. And events have largely proved him right.
He brought to that final chapter the same gentle humor that stirred realism into all his legal advice over the years. He even predicted—accurately—that his critics would use his obituary to get in a few last kicks.
John's irony was a bit like President Truman's 1948 "Give 'em hell, Harry" campaign. Truman insisted, "I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell." So it was with John Rizzo. He just told the truth, and everyone treated it as humor.
I'm going to miss that. Just days before his death, John and I were exchanging messages about tricky intelligence law issues. His vision of how politics and law would shape the answer was as clear and humor-tinged as ever. But some hard truths cannot be softened by irony. The death of John's wife, Sharon, in April of this year was one. If the official cause of his death was a heart attack, the more accurate cause was a broken heart. In the end, even knowing that he'd done his duty as he saw it was not enough to keep him going.
That's true of us all, of course. The British political leader Enoch Powell once said that all political careers end in defeat. Certainly all public lives end in death. What matters is not the ending but the doing. Judged in that light, John's is a life to be proud of.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I can think of a way he could have avoided that.
Both Rizzo and Stewart Baker were useful to those who used torture to get us into a stupid war which cost trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives, while they lived lives of comfort and prestige.
As soon as I read that sentence in this (quite nice) tribute, my first thought was, "Oh boy; that's gonna open up a can of worms." My own suggested correction would have been to simply change Baker's sentence to, "He knew that using torture would sooner or later make the agency vulnerable to claims of lawlessness and torture."
I have no problem paying respects to a man upon his death, and acknowledging his years (and years and years) of service to our country. But I think a lot of us Republicans (and, certainly tons of Dems and Independents) really recoiled at an official US policy of using torture. It's a major part of this guy's legacy.
(It's why John Woo will ALWAYS be "pro-rape John Woo" to me, as his own definition of 'torture' would allow raping prisoners to extract information without said rape rising to what is considered torture. It is how I always refer to Mr. Woo, how I always will refer to Mr. Woo, and the reason why my family will never again donate a cent to Boalt Law School. It had the full right to hire him, of course. And our right to react by putting it into the "You're dead to me now" list.)
You overestimate Republicans.
Look, I know Face/Off was not everyone's cup of tea, but this sounds a bit harsh.
Hint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo
RIP
The CIA did what it had to do. His career was secondary.
Torture gets you the answers you want to hear.
That's the myth. 10,000 years of human history says otherwise.
Speak to the Inquisition about that.
Bob, under torture, you'd confess to voting for Hillary.
If all the examiner wants is a confession, that is what he will get. You are describing that type of torture, certainly often used in human history. The CIA did not do that.
If the examiner wants useful info, he will get such info that can then be cross checked with other sources.
The CIA did not exactly get good information from their "techniques". But they did get what Bush and Cheney wanted to hear.
Info like Saddam has WMDs and such.
10,000 years of human history says otherwise
It's almost as though torture makes people like it for reasons other than getting at the truth.
You seem to be into it for reasons other than functional, as I recall from your posting about how we should torture as revenge for all those who died on 9-11.
"It’s almost as though torture makes people like it for reasons other than getting at the truth."
Um, yes people are tortured for other reasons than getting at the truth. But people also like it because it can be useful at getting at the truth.
In this case, did the Republicans' war crimes -- and the "truths" they generated -- lead to a Borat-style Most Glorious Triumphings Of Omnipotent American Military And Other Assorted Geniuses In Iraq And Afghanistan?
Torture is wrong because it is wrong. Whether it works or not is irrelevant. Presumably those who quote it doesn't work would be gung ho if it did?
No of course not.
Nobody likes it for that reason. People who claim to like it for that reason just think that it's 'serious' to hurt people to get what they want, the same way it's 'serious' to invade a country for revenge and profit.
CIA and died suddenly. What did he have on the Clintons?
Did you bother to read what the OP wrote? He was profoundly saddened by the death of his wife. Isn't that a logical reason for his death, rather than your batshit-crazy, mentally-retarded, wing-nut conspiracy idiocy?
"He knew that using harsh interrogation techniques would sooner or later make the agency vulnerable to claims of lawlessness and torture. " That is like saying that having sex with women other than your wife may make eventually make you vulnerable to charges of adultery, or that misappropriating funds entrrusted to you may sonner or later make you vulnerable to charges of embezzlement.
Rizzo was a lousy and weak person who enabled counterproductive torturers.
That Mr. Baker lauds him, and the Volokh Conspiracy and reason.com print this character-bereft rubbish, seem fitting.
Carry on, clingers . . . so far as your betters permit, anyway.
Artie. Good job you wokies did in Afghanistan. You elected Biden. Now 12 year old girls will be taken out of 6th grade, and made sex slaves to stinky 60 year old Taliban. They do not even use toilet paper. Next, the traitor, Biden, will surrender Taiwan. Then a 9/11 attack will return to the US from Afghanistan.
Then all wokies get rounded up.
Go invade again, then.
Yup.
I'm sure somewhere there's a Taliban telling a twelve year old Afghan girl, "You lost the culture war, and now you will comply with the preferences of your betters. Just try not to whimper too much."
Extremists everywhere sound the same.
Whimper and fantasize as you like, 12IP. But you will continue to live your life in compliance with the preferences of far better people, you bigoted, no-count clinger.
There are 38 million people living under their self-declared betters tonight.
You are a fool who does not learn from history.
Learn what lesson? That when right wing hawks set out to create a New American Empire just send them straight to jail?
Probably be too busy returning their country to traditional values, getting tough on crime, putting religion back in schools, ending reproductive healthcare and gay rights, and otherwise working to Make Afghanistan Great Again. Some types of extremists do indeed sound the same, but in this instance, not in a way that is particularly favorable to your cause.
Are Afghanistan's superstitious, stale-thinking, half-educated bigots (Taliban) worse or better than America's superstitious, stale-thinking, half-educated bigots (MAGA clingers)?
The Taliban are much much worse. We can play partisan games, which is fine. But the Taliban is truly evil, in almost every action it takes. And while you might think little (or very little!!!) of today's Republican party, I would not make the mistake of trivializing just how awful the Taliban is, and how horrific the lives of women there are going to get.
I understand the goals of the Biden/Trump (or, if you prefer, the Trump/Biden) plan, of getting out of a morass that has lasted 20 years. But let's not kid ourselves about the coming holocaust (lower-case "h") that's going to happen in that miserable corrupt war-torn country.
Hand-wring all you want, blame Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush (oh yes, fuck Bush) all the way back to Reagan and Carter for funding and arming them in the first place, just don't kid yourself that the coming holocaust isn't on the US as an imperial power that set out to create a hegemony entirely in its own interests, or rather, in the interests of its capital class.
The Taliban say they're gonna try to be more diverse. I hear they're contemplating an equity program where you don't get to look at the 12 year old girl before purchasing her.
Getting mad at 'wokies' for the abject and catastrophic failure of hawkish right-wing policies that have measurably only made the world worse (but Haliburton etc. rich!) No chance of a bit of self-reflection? No? But I remember when the plight of 12 year old Afghan girls was used to justify this horrific shitshow in the first place.
“He knew that using harsh interrogation techniques would sooner or later make the agency vulnerable to claims of lawlessness and torture.”
Very perceptive of him to recognize that doing war crimes opens you up to charges of lawlessness. But as to the "sooner or later"? The CIA has never in its history been anything other than a criminal organization. They were the masterminds of Operation Condor, the Phoenix Program, the Jakarta Method, among hundreds of other similar atrocities. Anyone who served for decades as "the last word on what CIA operatives could and could not do within the law" should die in prison, not be subject to such a fawning eulogy.
Your fans seem to like authoritarian war criminals, too, Prof. Volokh. The more they support your movement conservatism, the more they seem to like and defend torture.
Do you wonder why this occurs, or whether it contributes to your increasing disaffectedness as modern America improves against your wishes and efforts?
As Justice Stevens and Ginsberg said in the first Carhart opinion, if you can kill ‘em, it’s rediculous, nonsense, humbug, superstition, unconstitutionally irrational, to worry about whether the way uou treat ‘em is “barbaric” or not.
Given that the constitution assigns decisions about Americans security to the United States and gives liberty of choice in making those decisions in the prosecution of a war, “it is impossible for me to understand how a State has any legitimate interest in requirimg [the relevant consulting professional] to follow any other procedure other than the one he or she believes will best protect the exercise of that liberty.”
There you have it. This idea that torture is somehow morally wrong is IRRATIONAL from the point of view of Justices Stevens and Ginsberg. After all, in their view personhood is binary, full constitutional rights or morally equivalent to a sack of meat and irrational to think otherwise. Under binary personhood, since extraterritorial aliens are not constitutional persons “in the full sense of the word,” it necessarily follows that they are at most merely potential human life.
Insane though it is, this might actually be better-reasoned than the Yoo memo.
John McCain was waterborded, and not "to see what it was like." He said it's torture.
Lawyers in mansions serving politicians in their official capacity as sophists should gut themselves.
Is that too violent? Well, then. Go watch Hello, Larry reruns.
Once again: you have misread the concurrence you are citing. It does not say anything like what you think it does.
You can argue that the quote is dicta and isn’t essential to the concurrence, which opined that a method the state would accept was just as “gruesome” as the method it wouldn’t upset, and hence the schema could be found irrational on these (much more narrow) grounds alone.
But dicta or not, the quote is there. I’m entitled to give it its full breadth and criticise it accordingly.
What this country needs is a firmly libertarian magazine.
Striking homage. It will be difficult to be without the physical presence of a friend of more decades than many marriages.
I was not aware of Rizzo's memoir. Have it at my fingertips right now. Thanks!
Enoch Powell was wrong about a great many things, including the sentence that Stewart quotes, "All political careers end in defeat." Not true. Reagan, Eisenhower, etc., etc. That Stewart relies on this obviously untrue statement (by a notorious racist and xenophobe) shows the extent to which he is trying to whitewash Rizzo's (and his own) shameful whitewashing/looking the other way.
Enoch Powell did not orchestrate the mass starvation of German prisoners of war. Nor did he effect the repatriation of tens of thousands of Russian prisoners of war to Uncle Joe.
Enoch Powell was not an FBI stooge. Nor did he sign executive orders okaying deep state surveillance of American citizens.