Showing posts with label Torture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Torture. Show all posts

2009-05-20

MSNBC not Liberal Like Fox is Conservative / Falsehoods about Torture



Joe Scarborough falsely claimed that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah "were not asked" by the CIA about a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. In fact, according to a Senate report, the CIA questioned both about an Iraq/Al Qaeda relationship.

Of course, multiple sources confirm that both KSM and Abu Zubaida were interrogated with the Al-Qaeda/Iraq Link being a key area of interest. Remind me, when you torture someone to give you information that doesn't actually exist, what are the odds that you'll get an answer that's useful in any way other than politically?

Good old Media Matters. So useful.

2009-05-19

Cheney Used Torture to Justify Iraq War

From the best damned journalists around, McClatchy:
WASHINGTON — Then-Vice President Dick Cheney, defending the invasion of Iraq, asserted in 2004 that detainees interrogated at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp had revealed that Iraq had trained al Qaida operatives in chemical and biological warfare, an assertion that wasn't true.

Cheney's 2004 comments to the now-defunct Rocky Mountain News were largely overlooked at the time. However, they appear to substantiate recent reports that interrogators at Guantanamo and other prison camps were ordered to find evidence of alleged cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein — despite CIA reports that there were only sporadic, insignificant contacts between the militant Islamic group and the secular Iraqi dictatorship.
They tortured people to obtain false confessions to justify the Iraq War after the fact. And apparently, the mainstream media is fine with that. Accountability would just be so divisive.

2009-05-16

torture view

Kevin Drum's view of torture is also mine:

OK, here's my view on ticking time bombs. It's not original:

Torture should always be illegal. But if you're really, truly convinced that a nuke is about to go off in downtown Atlanta and the human filth in your possession can tell you where it is, then do your worst. I'll cheer you on, the president will pardon you, and the nation will be grateful. OK?

I wish everyone could just agree on this. It's not as if it's ever going to happen, after all, and if it does, well, the guy who saved Atlanta really would get a presidential pardon, wouldn't he?

I don't see how people can't see the danger in institutionalizing the practice. It leads, inevitably, to Abu Ghraib.

2009-05-15

Greenwald on Photos

Greenwald examines one of the excuses for not releasing the reams of additional photos of detainee abuse:
We're currently occupying two Muslim countries. We're killing civilians regularly (as usual) -- with airplanes and unmanned sky robots. We're imprisoning tens of thousands of Muslims with no trial, for years. Our government continuesto insist that it has the power to abduct people -- virtually all Muslim -- ship them to Bagram, put them in cages, and keep them there indefinitely with no charges of any kind. We're denying our torture victims any ability to obtain justice for what was done to them by insisting that the way we tortured them is a "state secret" and that we need to "look to the future." We provide Israel with the arms and money used to do things like devastate Gaza. Independent of whether any or all of these policies are justifiable, the extent to which those actions "inflame anti-American sentiment" is impossible to overstate.

And now, the very same people who are doing all of that are claiming that they must suppress evidence of our government's abuse of detainees because to allow the evidence to be seen would "inflame anti-American sentiment."

The real reason for the delay is that they want to slow roll accountability until after they have their domestic agenda finished. Or so we hope.

2009-05-12

KO Takes Down Bill-O on Torture

Once again, Keith-O catches Bill-O wrongfully turning our friends into War Criminals. If you recall, he did the same thing with our own soldiers in WWII, when it was in fact the Nazi's that perpetrated the crimes at Malmedy he accused our boys of committing.


Once again, Keith is indispensable.

2009-05-11

White House to Declassify CIA Torture Report

The Holy Grail of Torture Reports is apparently about to be released:

There’s a big piece of news about Dick Cheney and torture buried toward the end of this bigWashington Post piece about the torture wars.

Specifically: The White House has decided to declassify and release a classified 2004 CIA report about the torture program that is reported to have found no proof that torture foiled any terror plots on American soil — directly contradicting Cheney’s claims. The paper cites “allies” of the White House as a source.

Dem Congressional staffers tell me this report is the “holy grail,” because it is expected to detail torture in unprecedented detail and to cast doubt on the claim that torture works — and its release will almost certainly trigger howls of protest from conservatives. Tellingly, neither the CIA nor the White House knocked down the story in response to my questions, with spokespeople for both declining comment. Here’s the key nugget from the Post piece:

Government officials familiar with the CIA’s early interrogations say the most powerful
evidence of apparent excesses is contained in the “top secret” May 7, 2004,
inspector general report
, based on more than 100 interviews, a review of the
videotapes and 38,000 pages of documents. The full report remains closely held,
although White House officials have told political allies that they intend to
declassify it for public release
when the debate quiets over last month’s
release of the Justice Department’s interrogation memos…

Although some useful information was produced, the report concluded that “it is
difficult to determine conclusively whether interrogations have provided
information critical to interdicting specific imminent attacks,”
according to
the Justice Department’s declassified summary of it.

This news is particularly timely in light of Cheney’s continuing high-profile claims that torture may have saved “hundreds of thousands of lives.” The report is the one I wrote about recently that the ACLU obtained through litigation in highly redacted form. It has an entire redacted sectionthat discusses the “effectiveness” of torture — or lack thereof.

Well done, Plum Line.

2009-04-29

Reagan Prosecuted Waterboarding

If the Bush Lawyers had as their intention a good faith legal analysis of waterboarding and other EITs, then they would have found this:
George W. Bush’s Justice Department said subjecting a person to the near-drowning of waterboarding was not a crime and didn’t even cause pain, but Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department thought otherwise, prosecuting a Texas sheriff and three deputies for using the practice to get confessions.

Federal prosecutors secured a 10-year sentence against the sheriff and four years in prison for the deputies. But that 1983 case – which would seem to be directly on point for a legal analysis on waterboarding two decades later – was never mentioned in the four Bush administration opinions released last week.

"To take one example, there was a court-martial addressing the practice of waterboarding from 1903, a state court case from the Twenties, a series of prosecutions at the [post-World War II] Tokyo Tribunal (in many of which the death penalty was sought) and another court-martial in 1968," Horton said. "These precedents could have been revealed in just a few minutes of computerized research using the right search engines. It's hard to imagine that Yoo and Bybee didn't know them.

...

The failure to cite the earlier waterboarding case and a half-dozen other precedents that dealt with torture is reportedly one of the critical findings of a Justice Department watchdog report that legal sources say faults former Bush administration lawyers -- Jay Bybee, John Yoo and Steven Bradbury -- for violating "professional standards."
Notice that Reagan's prosecution is just the last in a long line of historical legal precedents.  The fact that their legal examination of this issue didn't reveal these precedents goes a long way towards proving that the reviews were conducted in bad faith - that the White House told the DOJ lawyers what they wanted, and the DOJ produced.  This system is uncomfortably close to "if the President does it, then it is not illegal."

European Vacations

This alert was just recently filed by the AP:
MADRID (AP) — Spain's top investigative magistrate has opened an investigation into the Bush administration over alleged torture of terror suspects at the Guantanamo prison.

Baltasar Garzón's move on Wednesday is separate from a complaint by human rights lawyers that seeks charges against six specific Bush administration officials.

Judge Garzon's action, which is separate from the inquiry requested by human rights lawyers against six Bush Administration officials including John Yoo, David Addington, Alberto Gonzales, and Douglas Feith, and is said to be premised upon the complaints of four individuals who claim to have been tortured while detained at Guantanamo, one of which is a Spanish citizen, along with two Brits and a Moroccan previously residing in Spain. All were accused of being members of al-Qaida in Spain, though all four were cleared
Whoa.  Remember, Reagan's Convention Against Torture establishes an universal jurisdiction - if the host country is unwilling or unable to investigate credible claims of torture, then any signatory in the world can begin an investigation, culminating in prosecution.  Perhaps this will increase pressure for us to police our own citizens, like a modern Democracy should.

Time to cancel those European Vacations, you loyal Bushies.

2009-04-28

Torture Lies From the Past

Kudos to the NYTS for revisiting these lies:
In late 2007, there was the first crack of daylight into the government’s use of waterboarding during interrogations of Al Qaeda detainees. On Dec. 10, John Kiriakou, a former C.I.A. officer who had participated in the capture of the suspected terrorist Abu Zubaydah in Pakistan in 2002, appeared on ABC News to say that while he considered waterboarding a form of torture, the technique worked and yielded results very quickly.

Mr. Zubaydah started to cooperate after being waterboarded for “probably 30, 35 seconds,” Mr. Kiriakou told the ABC reporter Brian Ross. “From that day on he answered every question.”

His claims — unverified at the time, but repeated by dozens of broadcasts, blogs and newspapers — have been sharply contradicted by a newly declassified Justice Department memo that said waterboarding had been used on Mr. Zubaydah “at least 83 times.”
Suck on that America!

2009-04-24

Pentagon Agency Called it Torture in 2002

Wow.  This is a bombshell.
The military agency that helped to devise harsh interrogation techniques for use against terrorism suspects referred to the application of extreme duress as "torture" in a July 2002 document sent to the Pentagon's chief lawyer and warned that it would produce "unreliable information."

"The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel," says the document, an unsigned two-page attachment to a memo by the military's Joint Personnel Recovery Agency. Parts of the attachment, obtained in full by The Washington Post, were quoted in a Senate report on harsh interrogation released this week.
That's damning.  Once again, we have evidence that the Bush Administration knew what they were doing was illegal and produced unreliable information.  If you know that these techniques will produce unreliable information, and you then suggest using these techniques to discover a link between 9/11 and Iraq after the invasion, then what you are doing is using torture to procure false confessions.  You are no better than the North Koreans, or any of the other torturers history has seen.  

Evidence mounts for prosecutions.

2009-04-21

Zelikow the Good Guy

I am unaware of Philip Zelikow's broader history, but perhaps if I was better read this wouldn't come as a surprise.  Zelikow says that not only did he urge the Principles not to approve a torture program, but all known copies of his dissenting memo were collected and destroyed.
At the time, in 2005, I circulated an opposing view of the legal reasoning. My bureaucratic position, as counselor to the secretary of state, didn't entitle me to offer a legal opinion. But I felt obliged to put an alternative view in front of my colleagues at other agencies, warning them that other lawyers (and judges) might find the OLC views unsustainable. My colleagues were entitled to ignore my views. They did more than that: The White House attempted to collect and destroy all copies of my memo. I expect that one or two are still at least in the State Department's archives.
The Bush Administration knew what they were doing was illegal, and they went about destroying evidence of that fact.

2009-03-31

What Digby Said

Keeping It Quiet

by digby

Over the week-end, I wrote a bit about the latest torture revelations concerning Abu Zubayda and the fact that everything they got from him under "enhanced interrogations" turned out to be garbage. I mused that they didn't really care what the torture revealed, merely that they got lots of "metrics" that could show they were making progress in the GWOT with their macho tactics. Reader Sleon pointed me in the direction of this post by Bmaz at Emptywheel which adds another intriguing bit of speculation along the same lines:

Such is the clincher as to why the torture tapes had to be destroyed. It wasn't just that Bush/Cheney et. al wanted to keep evidence of their torture program secret, there was never any complete way to do that. But there was only one thing that could prove they tortured for nothing and got nothing - the tapes. Cheney and his coterie of fellow Torquemadas were fiends proud of their handiwork; if they had evidence that it worked, they would have kept it. They burn spies for fun, crow on television about their willingness to torture and what they have accomplished, do you really think for one second they wouldn't retain proof if they had it?

And let us not forget just who we are talking about here - it is the White House Principals group:

The so-called Principals who participated in the meetings also approved the use of "combined" interrogation techniques -- using different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time -- on terrorist suspects who proved difficult to break, sources said.

Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.

The high-level discussions about these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed -- down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.

The advisers were members of the National Security Council's Principals Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise President Bush on issues of national security policy.

At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

As the national security adviser, Rice chaired the meetings, which took place in the White House Situation Room and were typically attended by most of the principals or their deputies.

Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Tenet and Ashcroft. Means, motive and opportunity. Who could have imagined?

This certainly explains why it was top White House lawyers including Gonzales, Addington, Bellinger and Miers, with "vigorous sentiment", assisted the CIA in the decision and process to destroy the torture tapes of abu-Zubaydah and others.

(Every time I am reminded of that principles group watching "choreographed" torture before signing off on it, I am shocked and appalled all over again. )

As to the question at hand, considering the fact that Cheney and Rummy spent their entire careers trying to correct what they considered the sins of the Nixon administration, Bmaz's speculation makes sense. After all, they believed that Nixon's catastrophic error was failing to destroy the ... tapes.

2009-03-28

No International Vacations for the Bush Admin.

It looks like Spain might be getting ready to give the Bushies the Pinochet treatment:
A high-level Spanish court has taken the first steps toward opening a criminal investigation against six former Bush administration officials, including former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, on whether they violated international law by providing a legalistic framework to justify the use of torture of American prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, an official close to the case said.

The case was sent to the prosecutor's office for review by Baltasar Garzon, the crusading investigative judge who indicted the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. The official said that it was "highly probable" that the case would go forward and could lead to arrest warrants.

No international vacations for any of the National Security "Principles" that approved torture.

2009-02-12

Public Overwhelming Supports Accountability

Surprise, surprise!  The public actually supports the idea that no one should be above the law in this country, and if that means investigating the Bush Administration, so be it!
Close to two-thirds of those surveyed said there should be investigations into allegations that the Bush team used torture to interrogate terrorism suspects and its program of wiretapping U.S. citizens without getting warrants. Almost four in 10 favor criminal investigations and about a quarter want investigations without criminal charges. One-third said they want nothing to be done.

Even more people want action on alleged attempts by the Bush team to use the Justice Department for political purposes. Four in 10 favored a criminal probe, three in 10 an independent panel, and 25% neither.
Awesome.  This puts the Obama Administration in quite the pickle, since the country supports it, but the media will be absolutely aghast at the thought of prosecuting members of the former Administration.

2009-01-25

Terrorists in our Neighborhoods

It shouldn't require explanation, but we already have a bunch of terrorists "in your neighborhoods."  Greenwald provides a helpful list:
  1. Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, convicted, 1996, U.S. District Court (before then-U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey) -- plotting terrorist attacks on the U.S. (currently: U.S. prison, Butler, North Carolina);
  2. Zacarias Moussaoui, convicted, 2006, U.S. Federal Court -- conspiracy to commit the 9/11 attacks (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado);
  3. Richard Reid, convicted, 2003, U.S. Federal Court -- attempting to blow up U.S.-bound jetliner over the Atlantic Ocean (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado);
  4. Jose Padilla, convicted, 2007, U.S. Federal Court -- conspiracy to commit terrorism (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado);
  5. Iyman Faris a/k/a/ Mohammad Rauf, convicted, 2003, U.S. Federal Court -- providing material support and resources to Al-Qaeda, conspiracy to commit terrorist acts on behalf of Al Qaeda (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado);
  6. Ali Saleh al-Marri, accused Al Qaeda operative -- not yet tried, held as "unlawful enemy combatant" (currently: U.S. Naval Brig, Hanahan, South Carolina);
  7. Masoud Khan, convicted, 2004, U.S. Federal Court -- conspiracy to commit terrorism as part of Lashkar-e-Taiba and Islamic jihad (currently: U.S. prison, Terre Haute, Indiana);
  8. John Walker Lindh, convicted, 2002, U.S. Federal Court -- providing material support to the Taliban (currently: U.S. prison, Florence, Colorado).
It should go without saying that if some Gitmo detainees cannot be convicted, they wouldn't be released in America since they aren't American citizens.

That doesn't stop Republicans from being idiots about it:
Republican lawmakers, who oppose Mr. Obama’s plan, found a talking point with political appeal. They said closing Guantánamo could allow dangerous terrorists to get off on legal technicalities and be released into quiet neighborhoods across the United States. If the detainees were convicted, the Republicans continued, American prisons housing terrorism suspects could become magnets for attacks.
These people are morons.

Update:  Why is the Daily Show smarter than the entire Republican Caucus?

Gitmo's Superb Treatment of Prisoners

For those Republicans who like to cite the Halal meals provided to Gitmo detainees as proof that the place isn't so bad, and is in fact nicer than domestic prisons, I'd direct you to this statement by the Lead Prosecutor in the case of Mohammed Jawad. Mr. Jawad was picked up in Afghanistan when he was between 15 and 17 years old, and has been held since 2002.

Remember, this is from the Lead Prosecutor, not a defense attorney:
"As early as November 2003, Joint Task Force-GTMO ("JTF-GTMO") personnel used sleep deprivation to disorient specific detainees for intelligence purposes. Pursuant to this technique, euphemistically referred to as the "frequent flyer" program, a detainee would be repeatedly moved from one cell to another in quick intervals, throughout the day and night, to disrupt sleep cycles.

48. Military records show that Mohammed was subjected to the "frequent flyer" program from May 7 to May 20, 2004. Over that fourteen-day period, Mohammed was forcibly moved from cell to cell 112 times, on an average of about once every three hours, and prevented from sleeping. Mohammed's medical records indicate that significant health effects he suffered during this time include blood in his urine, bodily pain, and a weight loss of 10% from April 2004 to May 2004."
Something that causes blood in the urine could never be described as Torture.  Heavens, no.
"During the interrogation, Mohammed allegedly made incriminating statements and a document, purporting to be a confession, was prepared for him to "sign" with his thumbprint. Mohammed did not know what the document was, did not read it, and was told he needed to put his thumb print on it to be released.

25. The written statement allegedly containing Mohammed's confession and thumbprint is in Farsi. Mohammed does not read, write, or speak Farsi. There are several factual assertions in the statement that are false, including Mohammed's name, his father's name, his grandfather's name, his uncle's name, his residence, his current residence, his age, and an assertion that he speaks English. The statement's account of the grenade attack -- the responsibility for which the statement ascribes solely to Mohammed -- conflicts with the eyewitness accounts of the American victims. Yet, it was this statement that Respondents and their agents primarily relied on as a basis for Mohammed's detention, and for the charges brought against him in the Guantanamo Military Commissions.
Ahhhh, false confessions - the one thing that torture is good at producing.  In fact, the Communist program, from which our torture programs have been developed, was explicitly designed to produce false confessions.
"7. It is important to understand that the "case files" compiled at OMC-P or developed by CITF are nothing like the investigation and case files assembled by civilian police agencies and prosecution offices, which typically follow a standardized format, include initial reports of investigation, subsequent reports compiled by investigators, and the like. Similarly, neither OMC-P nor CITF maintained any central repository for case files, any method for cataloguing and storing physical evidence, or any other system for assembling a potential case into a readily intelligible format that is the sine qua non of a successful prosecution. While no experienced prosecutor, much less one who had performed his or her duties in the fog of war, would expect that potential war crimes would be presented, at least initially, in "tidy little packages," at the time I inherited the Jawad case, Mr. Jawad had been in U.S. custody for approximately five years. It seemed reasonable to expect at the very least that after such a lengthy period of time, all available evidence would have been collected, catalogued, systemized, and evaluated thoroughly -- particularly since the suspect had been imprisoned throughout the entire time the case should have been undergoing preparation.

8. Instead, to the shock of my professional sensibilities, I discovered that the evidence, such as it was, remained scattered throughout an incomprehensible labyrinth of databases primarily under the control of CITF, or strewn throughout the prosecution offices in desk drawers, bookcases packed with vaguely-labeled plastic containers, or even simply piled on the tops of desks vacated by prosecutors who had departed the Commissions for other assignments. I further discovered that most physical evidence that had been collected had either disappeared or had been stored in locations that no one with any tenure at, or institutional knowledge of, the Commissions could identify with any degree of specificity or certainty. The state of disarray was so extensive that I later learned, as described below, that crucial physical evidence and other documents relevant to both the prosecution and the defense had been tossed into a locker located at Guantanamo and promptly forgotten. Although it took me a number of months -- so extensive was the lack of any discernable organization, and so difficult was it for me to accept that the US military could have failed so miserably in six years of effort -- I began to entertain my first, developing doubts about the propriety of attempting to prosecute Mr. Jawad without any assurance that through the exercise of due diligence I could collect and organize the evidence in a manner that would meet our common professional obligations."
Amazing.  This was America engaging in this type of behavior.  America.

This makes us less safe, plain and simple.  This type of behavior gives moral justification to our enemies, strengthening their hearts and causing recruitment to explode.  In a war that has no centralized enemy, the only path to victory is through hearts and minds - and that's not some liberal peacenik saying that, that's Admiral Mullen.

Update: The Daily Show has been indispensable:


2008-12-06

Torture Motivates Our Enemies

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.
It's so obvious... the soldiers volunteered.  The all-volunteer force allowed the Bush Administration to use them in ways that no government with a conscripted force would ever contemplate.  They are expendable, both in the field and once they return home.  The GI Bill and the Walter Reed scandal is all the proof you need on that last point.  "Support the Troops" really means "Support All Wars."

I'd say it is equally obvious that these practices have made our homeland less secure as well as our troops in the field.  In the mythical Jack Bauer situation, where we know there is an imminent attack and we know that someone in custody knows how to stop it, then no jury would convict a Bauer-type for doing what they thought they needed to do to avert the attack.  The problem is enshrining that torture as legal.  If it's legal, it'll happen routinely.  It will become the norm rather than the exception, and then America will cease to be a Shining City on the Hill, and join the ranks of ordinary nations and tinpot dictators.  In fact, that is exactly what has happened under the Bush Torture Regime.  To think that these dirt-poor, illiterate youths that are susceptible to radicalization will only strike in Iraq against US Forces is naive.  If they had the chance to strike America itself, I don't think there is much doubt as to which target they would prefer.

This concern isn't borne out of some liberal hippie-dippie desire to be nice to everyone and drop flowers instead of bombs.  Being seen as the Shining City is the greatest Strategic Weapon America has at its disposal.  It is a weapon we can use freely, for it creates no blowback.  Ronald Reagan understood this, but the Republican Party that worships him has decided he was wrong.  They're still on board with the deficit-spending, favor-the-rich, tax-cuts-solve-everything policies, but the Shining City - that's liberal mushiness and naivete.

2008-12-05

Supremes to Hear Al Marri Case

So, the Supreme Court has finally agreed to hear the Al-Marri Case.  They're years late, but it's better late than never.

Al-Marri is one of the greatest travesties of Bush's misguided war on our civil liberties.  He must ultimately find Justice for the good of the nation, but this leads to a perverse situation.  If Obama moves to give him that Justice expeditiously, he could accidentally enshrine the powers seized by our recent Monarch, George W. Bush.  Without his continued indefinite incarceration, the Supreme Court will rule that the issue is moot, since the injustice has been righted.  They've done the same thing before in the Padilla case, where the Bush Administration transferred him to a civilian prison just before the Supremes were to hear the case.  The conservative court (with 7 of 9 Justices appointed by Republicans) refused to grant review in the Padilla case, thereby preserving Bush's justification for his indefinite detentions, and they will surely do so again if given the chance.

So, as awful as it is, I say let him rot in jail for another few months.  Then the Court will be forced to rule, and we will finally have a Supreme Court precedent saying what none of us ever thought would be necessary - that the President does not have the powers of a King in wartime, and cannot simply imprison Americans on American soil without charge or trial on his say-so alone.  That we need to establish this precedent via the Court rather than just relying on the plain reading of the Constitution is a sad, sad thing for the Republic.

2008-07-13

Torture Verified

This is very illuminating. Greenwald always does an excellent job of making legal issues understandable and compelling:
According to the New York Times and Washington Post, both of which received an advanced copy, Mayer's book reports the following:
  • "Red Cross investigators concluded last year in a secret report that the Central Intelligence Agency's interrogation methods for high-level Qaeda prisoners constituted torture and could make the Bush administration officials who approved them guilty of war crimes."
  • "A CIA analyst warned the Bush administration in 2002 that up to a third of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay may have been imprisoned by mistake, but White House officials ignored the finding and insisted that all were 'enemy combatants' subject to indefinite incarceration."
  • "[A] top aide to Vice President Cheney shrugged off the report and squashed proposals for a quick review of the detainees' cases . . .

    'There will be no review,' the book quotes Cheney staff director David Addington as saying. 'The president has determined that they are ALL enemy combatants. We are not going to revisit it.'"

  • "[T]he [CIA] analyst estimated that a full third of the camp's detainees were there by mistake. When told of those findings, the top military commander at Guantanamo at the time, Major Gen. Michael Dunlavey, not only agreed with the assessment but suggested that an even higher percentage of detentions -- up to half -- were in error. Later, an academic study by Seton Hall University Law School concluded that 55 percent of detainees had never engaged in hostile acts against the United States, and only 8 percent had any association with al-Qaeda."
  • [T]he International Committee of the Red Cross declared in the report, given to the C.I.A. last year, that the methods used on Abu Zubaydah, the first major Qaeda figure the United States captured, were 'categorically' torture, which is illegal under both American and international law".
  • "[T]he Red Cross document 'warned that the abuse constituted war crimes, placing the highest officials in the U.S. government in jeopardy of being prosecuted.'"
This is what a country becomes when it decides that it will not live under the rule of law, when it communicates to its political leaders that they are free to do whatever they want -- including breaking our laws -- and there will be no consequences. There are two choices and only two choices for every country -- live under the rule of law or live under the rule of men. We've collectively decided that our most powerful political leaders are not bound by our laws -- that when they break the law, there will be no consequences. We've thus become a country which lives under the proverbial "rule of men" -- that is literally true, with no hyperbole needed -- and Mayer's revelations are nothing more than the inevitable by-product of that choice.

That's why this ongoing, well-intentioned debate that Andrew Sullivan is having with himself and his readers over whether "torture is worse than illegal, warrantless eavesdropping" is so misplaced, and it's also why those who are dismissing as "an overblown distraction" the anger generated by last week's Congressional protection of surveillance lawbreakers are so deeply misguided. Things like "torture" and "illegal eavesdropping" can't be compared as though they're separate, competing policies. They are rooted in the same framework of lawlessness. The same rationale that justifies one is what justifies the other. Endorsing one is to endorse all of it.

In fact, none of the scandals of radicalism and criminality which we've learned about over the last seven years -- including the creation of this illegal torture regime -- can be viewed in isolation. They're all by-products of the country that we've become in the post-9/11 era, primarily as a result of our collective decision to exempt our Government leaders from the rule of law; to acquiesce to the manipulative claim that we can only be Safe if we allow our Leaders to be free from consequences when they commit crimes; and to demonize advocates of the rule of law as -- to use Larry Lessig's mindless, reactionary clichés -- shrill, Leftist "hysterics" who need to "get off [their] high horse(s)".

That is the mentality that has allowed the Bush administration to engage in this profound assault on our national character, to violate our laws at will. Our political and media elite have acquiesced to all of this when they weren't cheering it all on. Those who object to it, who argue that these abuses of political power are dangerous in the extreme and that we cannot tolerate deliberate government lawbreaking, are dismissed as shrill Leftist hysterics.

Read the whole thing. It's not too much longer.

2008-07-01

Torture Policy Origins - the Communists

The Genesis of our torture policies:
WASHINGTON — The military trainers who came to Guantánamo Bay in December 2002 based an entire interrogation class on a chart showing the effects of “coercive management techniques” for possible use on prisoners, including “sleep deprivation,” “prolonged constraint,” and “exposure.”

What the trainers did not say, and may not have known, was that their chart had been copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners.
We knew that these tactics produced false confessions, and yet we used them to collect "important intelligence." These specific techniques were used by the Koreans to obtain false confessions from Americans which were then used for propaganda purposes - why shouldn't we do the same?

Of course, we knew what we were doing. Our policy was to use torture to make prisoners say exactly what we wanted them to, so we could use those false confessions to push whatever narrative the Bush Administration needed at the moment.

Once again, no European vacations allowed for senior members of the Bush team.