President Says He Knew His Senior Advisers Discussed Tough Interrogation Methods
President Bush says he knew his top national security advisers discussed and approved specific details about how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, according to an exclusive interview with ABC News Friday.
"Well, we started to connect the dots in order to protect the American people." Bush told ABC News White House correspondent Martha Raddatz. "And yes, I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved."
As first reported by ABC News Wednesday, the most senior Bush administration officials repeatedly discussed and approved specific details of exactly how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the CIA.
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.
These 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, sources told ABC news.
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 Dick Cheney, former National Security Adviser 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.
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.
Contacted by ABC News, spokesmen for Tenet and Rumsfeld declined to comment about the interrogation program or their private discussions in Principals meetings. The White House also declined comment on behalf of Rice and Cheney. Ashcroft could not be reached.
ABC News' Diane Sawyer sat down with Powell this week for a previously scheduled interview and asked him about the ABC News report.
Powell said that he didn't have "sufficient memory recall" about the meetings and that he had participated in "many meetings on how to deal with detainees."
Powell said, "I'm not aware of anything that we discussed in any of those meetings that was not considered legal."
In his interview with ABC News, Bush said the ABC report about the Principals' involvement was not so "startling." The president had earlier confirmed the existence of the interrogation program run by the CIA in a speech in 2006. But before Wednesday's report, the extraordinary level of involvement by the most senior advisers in repeatedly approving specific interrogation plans -- down to the number of times the CIA could use a certain tactic on a specific al Qaeda prisoner -- had never been disclosed.
Critics at home and abroad have harshly criticized the interrogation program, which pushed the limits of international law and, they say, condoned torture. Bush and his top aides have consistently defended the program. They say it is legal and did not constitute torture.
In interview with ABC's Charles Gibson last year, Tenet said: "It was authorized. It was legal, according to the Attorney General of the United States."
The discussions and meetings occurred in an atmosphere of great concern that another terror attack on the nation was imminent. Sources said the extraordinary involvement of the senior advisers in the grim details of exactly how individual interrogations would be conducted showed how seriously officials took the al Qaeda threat.
It started after the CIA captured top al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah in spring 2002 in Faisalabad, Pakistan. When his safe house was raided by Pakistani security forces along with FBI and CIA agents, Zubaydah was shot three times during the gun battle.
At a time when virtually all counterterrorist professionals viewed another attack as imminent -- and with information on al Qaeda scarce -- the detention of Zubaydah was seen as a potentially critical breakthrough.
Zubaydah was taken to the local hospital, where CIA agent John Kiriakou, who helped coordinate Zubaydah's capture, was ordered to remain at the wounded captive's side at all times. "I ripped up a sheet and tied him to the bed," Kiriakou said.
But after Zubaydah recovered from his wounds at a secret CIA prison in Thailand, he was uncooperative. "I told him I had heard he was being a jerk," Kiriakou recalled. "I said, 'These guys can make it easy on you or they can make it hard.' It was after that he became defiant."
The CIA wanted to use more aggressive -- and physical -- methods to get information. The agency briefed high-level officials in the National Security Council's Principals Committee, led by then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and including then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, which then signed off on the plan, sources said. It is unclear whether anyone on the committee objected to the CIA's plans for Zubaydah.
The CIA has confirmed Zubaydah was one of three al Qaeda suspects subjected to waterboarding. After he was waterboarded, officials say Zubaydah gave up valuable information that led to the capture of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammad and fellow 9/11 plotter Ramzi bin al-Shibh.
Mohammad, who is known as KSM, was also subjected to waterboarding by the CIA.
In the interview with ABC News Friday, Bush defended the waterboarding technique used against KSM.
"We had legal opinions that enabled us to do it," Bush said. "And no, I didn't have any problem at all trying to find out what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed knew."
The president said, "I think it's very important for the American people to understand who Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was. He was the person who ordered the suicide attack -- I mean, the 9/11 attacks."
At a hearing before a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay March 10, 2007, KSM, as he is known, said he broke under the harsh interrogation. COURT: Were any statements you made as the result of any of the treatment that you received during that time frame from 2003 to 2006? Did you make those statements because of the treatment you receive from these people?
KSM: Statement for whom??
COURT: To any of these interrogators. ?
KSM: CIA peoples. Yes. At the beginning, when they transferred me...?
Lawyers in the Justice Department had written a classified memo, which was extensively reviewed, that gave formal legal authority to government interrogators to use the "enhanced" questioning tactics on suspected terrorist prisoners. The August 2002 memo, signed by then head of the Office of Legal Counsel Jay Bybee, was referred to as the so-called "Golden Shield" for CIA agents, who worried they would be held liable if the harsh interrogations became public.
Old hands in the intelligence community remembered vividly how past covert operations, from the Vietnam War-era "Phoenix Program" of assassinations of Viet Cong to the Iran-Contra arms sales of the 1980s were painted as the work of a "rogue agency" out of control.
But even after the "Golden Shield" was in place, briefings and meetings in the White House to discuss individual interrogations continued, sources said. Tenet, seeking to protect his agents, regularly sought confirmation from the NSC principals that specific interrogation plans were legal.
According to a former CIA official involved in the process, CIA headquarters would receive cables from operatives in the field asking for authorization for specific techniques. Agents, worried about overstepping their boundaries, would await guidance in particularly complicated cases dealing with high-value detainees, two CIA sources said.
Highly placed sources said CIA directors Tenet and later Porter Goss along with agency lawyers briefed senior advisers, including Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Powell, about detainees in CIA custody overseas.
"It kept coming up. CIA wanted us to sign off on each one every time," said one high-ranking official who asked not to be identified. "They'd say, 'We've got so and so. This is the plan.'"
Sources said that at each discussion, all the Principals present approved. "These discussions weren't adding value," a source said. "Once you make a policy decision to go beyond what you used to do and conclude it's legal, [you should] just tell them to implement it."
Ashcroft was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.
According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."
The Principals also approved interrogations that combined different methods, pushing the limits of international law and even the Justice Department's own legal approval in the 2002 memo, sources told ABC News.
At one meeting in the summer of 2003 -- attended by Cheney, among others -- Tenet made an elaborate presentation for approval to combine several different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time, according to a highly placed administration source.
A year later, amid the outcry over unrelated abuses of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the controversial 2002 legal memo, which gave formal legal authorization for the CIA interrogation program of the top al Qaeda suspects that was leaked to the press. A new senior official in the Justice Department, Jack Goldsmith, withdrew the legal memo -- the Golden Shield -- that authorized the program.
But the CIA had captured a new al Qaeda suspect in Asia. Sources said CIA officials that summer returned to the Principals Committee for approval to continue using certain "enhanced interrogation techniques."
Rice, sources said, was decisive. Despite growing policy concerns -- shared by Powell -- that the program was harming the image of the United States abroad, sources say she did not back down, telling the CIA: "This is your baby. Go do it."
Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
23 Comments so far
Show All"My America doesn't subscribe to bush league Justice"
New bumpersticker:
"My America doesn't torture wealthy political elite Anglo-Saxon American males!"
If this bit of tawdry bit of business does not convince one that Dubya, Cheney, & Co. have dragged the USA into the maw of fascist Third World style governance, then they are either seriously delusional or are profiting from this criminal gang's actions. It has gotten so bad that they now admit to what they're doing and almost dare their opposition to do something about it. Pelosi should be ashamed of herself, mouth a mea culpa, and begin impeachment proceedings.
NEWSFLASH!
Unrestrained worship of the Three Monkeys in America has skyrocketed with the news that the very top of the government hierarchy were personally involved in orchestrating the torture of people for whom "liberty and (most importantly) justice for all," apparently because they say so, do not apply.
Americans everywhere, particularly on Capitol Hill, have squeezed shut their eyes, plugged their ears and taped their mouths.
Traffic has been snarled across the country as a result.
Dem Leaders: WAKE UP! W just gave you the opening to impeach. Did you not hear us in the last election! We elected you to make this country whole. You need to get your heads out of the trough and do the job!
Greatbear, you say:
"The republican party really cracks me up. They'll impeach over sex, but not over torture."
Are you still capable of placing the blame solely on Republicans? Where were the Democrats, lo these last decades, as the pieces were being put together (media concentration, stacking of the judiciary, draconian laws, stolen elections, shredding of civil liberties and rights, corporate globalization and the policing apparatus to enforce it, preemptive wars, torture...)? Were they ghosts or mist in the background? Had they not the knowledge of what was happening?
Did none of them ever hear of the project for the New American Century? Funny --I did. Wouldn't it have been nice if any of them in Congress had bothered to point out to the American people what the PNAC crowd was up to, and tell us how we'd better start doing something about these dictatorial nutcases.
Oh, but that would assume they were actually opposed to it (or, heaven forbid, appalled by it).
Taking a page from these neocon throwbacks, the Dem leadership's greatest concern throughout all this was to SILENCE progressive thought or dissent in their ranks. They're essentially all on the same payroll today.
You gotta wake up to this reality if you want to be on the side of those working to resist this and wanting to establish a real democracy.
The republican party really cracks me up. They'll impeach over sex, but not over torture. Don't they find that even slightly embarassing? They're laughing stocks. Don't they see themselves at all?
How to end this torturous Regiem?
IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL OF ALL TROOPS AS STATED BY GENERAL ODOM
IMMEDIATE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR FOR WAR CRIMES< WAR PROFITEERING
IMMEDIATE CUT OFF OF FUNDS FOR THESE COLD BLOODED KILLERS
IMMEDIATE PRAYERS TO THE GOOD LORD FOR EVERY AMERICAN FAMILY
WHO HAS WATCHED THIS ONCE PROUD AND DECENT COUNTRY TAKEN 0ver by these neocon FACISTS
Yesterday: "The officials also took care to insulate President Bush from a series of meetings where CIA interrogation methods, including waterboarding, which simulates drowning, were discussed and ultimately approved."
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/11/8213/
Today: "President Bush says he knew his top national security advisers discussed and approved specific details about how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, according to an exclusive interview with ABC News Friday..."yes, I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved."
Tomorrow?
BTW: "The CIA has confirmed Zubaydah was one of three al Qaeda suspects subjected to waterboarding. After he was waterboarded, officials say Zubaydah gave up valuable information that led to the capture of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammad and fellow 9/11 plotter Ramzi bin al-Shibh."
I guess from this we're supposed to believe (although it is only implied) that ONLY "three al Qaeda suspects" were waterboarded (drowned during interrogation). Sure, they conducted multiple meetings to decide how to torture information out of just three prisoners. And the torture produced useful information that helped us capture other suspects.
It's about as believable as Bush being out of the loop on torture. But that's yesterday's news.
The old bumper sticker, "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention!", is true. People are either outraged and screaming or oblivious to all but what's in their own little world. Anyone that thinks should be appalled and demanding investigations and punishments, but more importantly, talking to those that are oblivious about what is going on.
How can we as a nation allow this to go unpunished? To do so without a fight is complicit in condoning the abuses that enrage us. What a challenge we have before us.
Unfortunately, there is a laundry list of outrageous behaviors and actions developed and perpetrated "on our behalf". Not on my behalf! And I don't think on your behalf. I sometimes want to run away, but feel compelled to stay and fight for the return of decency and democracy to my country. The fight is long and I grow weary.
Seven admitted war criminals at the top of the by far strongest power-structure in the world. They obviously reckon they have the power to define what laws will be empowered.
So confident are they of their power, that they spit their power to do whatever they please in our faces.
In every manner conceivable, they're taunting "we the people" from whom their power derive. They are using the taunts ("So?", "Bring it on!", flaunting their war crimes, etc.) as a shield to reinforce our feeling of powerlessness, like a spell they've cast. They're directly telling everyone that the people are powerless - and we believe them! What are we going to do about it?
When will we wake from their spell? When will their hubris be countered?
We're nearly 7 billion against 7 persons. That's about one billion to one. How come they're winning?
Bush must be taken down before he leaves office. If not he'll remain a dangerous symbol that war criminals are unimpeachable.
Peachmint icecream
"Well, we started to connect the dots in order to protect the American people." Bush told ABC News White House correspondent Martha Raddatz."
Connecting the dots: See Spot, see Spot run.
Who, really, are the American people?
SHARPEN YOUR WORDS
-- AND TAKE ACTION
IMPEACHMINT I SCREAM flyer &
PEACEIMPEACH poster
>>
www.Gg-Re.org/impeachmint.pdf
www.Gg-Re.org/peaceimpeach.pdf
~~~
"PIECES O PEACE PO"
123+ poems on one peace of paper
>>
www.Gg-Re.org/POS/2002-2020/PIECES-O-PEACE-PO-1.pdf
www.Gg-Re.org/POS/2002-2020/PIECES-O-PEACE-PO-2.pdf
-
Gg Re
Here is a background article on the consequences of the Military Commissions Act (MCA) on the current interpretation of the War Crimes Act as it applies to interrogations.
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL33662.pdf
The fact that Congress gave retroactive immunity to Bush and other officials for war crimes doesn't let them out of the violation of the Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions. In fact, the MCA makes it more likely that Bush and company will be named as war criminals in many nations.
Internally in the US, it is up to progressives and all American citizens to hold our government officials accountable for illegal interrogations, which are war crimes if they inflict "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment to any person in custody.
Madam Pelosi: Impeachment is off the table, eh?
How about Billary and Obama?
By not going after this war criminal gang you have forfeited any hope of getting my vote.
repubs are war criminals, Dems are complicit.
check out
http://pacificfreepress.com/content/view/2476/1/ ,
where:
Donations are requested for:
Support Alternative Media! Pacific Free Press needs your help! Please consider donating if you appreciate our work in combating the Mainstream Media via Google News.
This web site has the following diatribe by a Chris Floyd (who sounds like recent contributor devel1)
Please take time to read the following - It's an eye-opener to say the least. I did not know that being against torture made one a terrorist loving, islamofascist supporting, commie pinko prevert.
In Defense of John Yoo
Written by Chris Floyd
Thursday, 10 April 2008
Follow the Leader: In Defense of John Yoo
by Chris Floyd
John Yoo has been getting a bit of guff in the liberal media recently for some legal memoranda he wrote a while back defending the president's right -- and duty -- to protect the American people from terrorism. This criticism is as short-sighted as it is pernicious -- and we are here today to defend this good and faithful public servant against the unwarranted calumnies that have besmirched his name.
Fortunately for the security of our Republic, the far left's attempt to turn Yoo's patriotic labors into yet another persnickety"moral outrage," a la Abu Ghraib or My Lai or Wounded Knee, hasn't really taken off.
The usual suspects -- Washington Post, New York Times -- have put out a few stories, usually buried, quoting a few so-called legal "experts" wringing their hands -- while sitting comfortably on the backsides that President Bush and Vice President Cheney have kept safe for them all these years -- about Yoo's allegedly "unconcionable document."
And of course, some of the radical far left socialist "bloggers" like Scott Horton -- who used to work with the "father of the Commie A-bomb," Andrei Sakharov (need we say more about Horton's pinkish tint?) -- have been throwing the usual BDS hissy fits about how Yoo's memoranda constitute part of a "joint criminal enterprise" on the part of the Bush Administration, whose members, says Comrade Horton, had to know that "these memoranda would result in serious harm, including assault, torture and death, to protected persons in the custody of the United States."
[Hey Scott – enough with the Atticus Finch act already! This ain't good old Tom Robinson you're sticking up for here -- it's worthless scum who hate our freedoms and want to kill us all. Let's see what you say about the "rule of law" when some Islamofascist is killing your wife and breeding 15 more Islamocommies with your enslaved daughter, eh? You'll be sorry you tied our interrogator's hands then, won't you? You'll be wishing we'd had a bit more of the eye-gouging and acid-throwing and waterboarding and strappado and beating nearly to the point of death or organ failure -- and crushing the testicles of children -- that Yoo has stoutly defended as the president's prerogative, won't you?]
In fact, some extremist terror-symp America-hating moonbats have even gone so far as to say that the Bush Administration memoranda and directives on enhanced interrogation literally constitute a form of perverse pornography, lingering in great, obsessive detail over the specific methods of pain and humiliation that can -- and should -- be inflicted upon a captive. This "pornography of power," say the fifth columnists, is characterized not only by its fascination with violent, punishing contact with human flesh (preferably naked), but also -- perhaps chiefly -- by its maniacal insistence that the captives be rendered completely helpless, without the slightest shred of legal cover or due process to shield them from interrogators -- and their well-informed superiors -- who have been absolved in advance of any culpability for their actions.
All of this remarkable outpouring of traitorous filth is being laid directly at John Yoo's door. Indeed, General Secretary Horton and the rest of the pinkblogger Politburo are demanding that Yoo -- now a rightly honored professor of law at one of the nation's most respected educational establishments -- be disbarred for his alleged "complicity" in this "criminal conspiracy"; a conspiracy which according to Commissar Horton includes such other outstanding defenders of America's freedom as Doug Feith, Stephen Cambone, Steven Bradbury, Michael Chertoff, Alice Fisher, Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, I. Lewis Libby, Jay Bybee, Jim Haynes, Richard B. Cheney, John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, William Boykin, and Major General Geoffrey Miller, among others.
Well, I call BS on these bat-brains. John Yoo is not to "blame" for these torture memos. And neither is Mr. Addington or Mr. Feith or Mr. Gonzales or any of the other honorable, hard-working public officials caught up in the far left's mile-wide net of "conspiracy." John Yoo served at the pleasure of George W. Bush: the President of the United States, the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces, and the Chief Executive of our Republic. John Yoo wrote those memos at the request and direction of the White House and the Pentagon. Even Comrade Horton himself makes this crystal clear:
"According to the official narrative, the Bush Administration turned to the Justice Department for legal guidance on what could be done to give interrogators the latitude they were demanding in dealing with prisoners taken in the war on terror. However, not a single element of the official narrative is entirely true. The interrogators were not "pushing for broader authority." Indeed, the pushing was all coming out of the White House (from Vice President Cheney, to be specific), and the intelligence professionals were actually pushing back. Moreover, torture was being used almost from the start of the "war on terror." Special operations units operating under the authority of Dr. Stephen Cambone, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, had been authorized to use torture techniques from the opening of the war, and they used them with gusto.
In another article, the Commie nuke-enabler quotes British crypto-Muslim Phillipe Sand's article in Vanity Fair with further details:
"The real story, pieced together from many hours of interviews with most of the people involved in the decisions about interrogation, goes something like this: The Geneva decision was not a case of following the logic of the law but rather was designed to give effect to a prior decision to take the gloves off and allow coercive interrogation; it deliberately created a legal black hole into which the detainees were meant to fall.
"The new interrogation techniques did not arise spontaneously from the field but came about as a direct result of intense pressure and input from Rumsfeld's office. The Yoo-Bybee Memo was not simply some theoretical document, an academic exercise in blue-sky hypothesizing, but rather played a crucial role in giving those at the top the confidence to put pressure on those at the bottom. And the practices employed at Guant·namo led to abuses at Abu Ghraib."
The fingerprints of the most senior lawyers in the administration were all over the design and implementation of the abusive interrogation policies. Addington, Bybee, Gonzales, Haynes, and Yoo became, in effect, a torture team of lawyers, freeing the administration from the constraints of all international rules prohibiting abuse.
Hah! To paraphrase their great hero, Vladimir Lenin, if you give the Pinko Taliban enough rope, they will always hang themselves. The evidence laid out in their own propaganda rags clearly shows that the enhanced interrogation techniques -- which, as we all know, are the only things standing between us and the horde of super-potent overbreeding Muslims who have already taken over Europe -- were laid out at the direct order of those at the very top level of our freely elected democratic (small D, thank God!) government. John Yoo always was -- and always will be -- nothing but the faithful factotum of those who hold the power in our system.
So let's quit kicking John Yoo around, all right? He was only following orders. He did what he was told. He carried out the arbitrary will of our Leader, without question, without hestitation, without any quibbling over the rule of law. And isn't that the American way?
If you have some kind of problem with the President of the United States being able to order his flunkies to throw acid on a naked, chained-up captive -- who might have been sold into custody by a bounty hunter or rounded up in a random sweep or denounced by a business rival or snatched off a city street for having the wrong name, the wrong religion, the wrong skin; if for some reason it bothers your delicate liberal sensibilities that the President of the United States claims the power to hold any person on earth for as long as he likes, on no evidence or charges at all, and then slit the captive's ear or piss down his throat -- or grind the testicles of prisoner's five-year-old child under a bootheel; if you're such a big girl's blouse that you get all wiggly at the thought of the President of the United States claiming the arbitrary, unchecked power to kill any person on earth that he -- or his designated agents -- declares an "enemy combatant" or even a "suspected terrorist" -- then don't blame John C. Yoo. For God's sake, have the balls to put the responsibility squarely where it belongs: on the President of the United States, George Walker Bush, and the Vice President of the United States, Richard Bruce Cheney. Have the guts to demand their impeachment, now -- yes, now, right in the middle of a presidential election campaign, right in the middle of their last year in office -- for the capital crime (by U.S. law) of torture.
If you believe that what the Bush Administration has done is torture, then you have no other choice. And any elected officials in the national government -- including Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- who do not call for the immediate impeachment of Bush and Cheney on these charges, and the subsequent prosecution of their myriad minions who carried out their orders, are implicity condoning these crimes and acting as willing accomplices for them.
But as we see, no Democratic leaders are calling for impeachment; in fact, time and again, they specifically and adamantly rule it out. What's more, they are not even launching any formal, full-scale, high-profile investigations of the "torture memos" and the entire apparatus of enhanced interrogation, indefinite imprisonment and rendition that the leftist jihadis liken to the gulag -- even though they control both houses of Congress and could make life a living hell for the Bush Administration and John McCain, the loyal little lapdog who hopes to follow in the Leader's footsteps. But it is obvious that, deep down, the Democratic leaders agree with the President's actions and policies; they recognize the deep wisdom behind the aggression in the name of liberty in Iraq, the surveillance in the name of freedom at home, and the torture in the name of civilization that the Leader has made a hallmark of our enlightened age.
How then do they differ from the honorable John Yoo? They too are countenancing, assisting and following the arbitrary will of the Leader. They too look at the murder of a million innocent civilians in Iraq and refuse to treat it as a crime. They too look at the torture of helpless, uncharged, unprotected captives and refuse to treat it as a crime. Oh, they may preen and posture, they may lay some hot and heavy rhetoric on the rubes out there; but they DO nothing. And these are crimes which they actually have the power to investigate and prosecute.
Where then is the actual moral difference between these progressive paragons and John Yoo? He is simply more honest about his bootlicking servility to abitrary, brutal – and avowedly, unashamedly unconstitutional -- power, that's all. He has the courage of his lawless convictions. What do those Democratic leaders who claim allegiance to the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States have? The cowardice of their ambitions.
Using "aware" and "George W. Bush" together in the same sentence borders on sacrilege. The man is aware of nothing but his own delusions. There had better be a kind God because nothing less will be able to save America from its worst affliction ever, ie, George Walker Bush.
"Well, we started to connect the dots in order TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE." [emphasis added]
Protect the American People. It has been and will continue to be their 'get out of jail free' card.
Nothing will change. Nothing.
Yet again, W. confesses in public to involvement in a felony. Unfortunately, Congress already gave him his get-out-of-jail-free card with the MCA's war crimes amnesty provision. Unless Congress repeals that provision, W. is untouchable for anything he did before the fall of 2006.
wexlerwantshearnings.com
If my congressmen and women don't start to push for a war crimes investigation of these filthy criminals and murders, I will never vote for them again.
Its time to start a War Crimes Investigation of George Bush and his band of Criminals in the White House.
We need a special prosecutor, and now.
Galen: DITTO ALL THE WAY......................
One starts to believe that insomuch as a true plan exists anywhere for these end times for the republic, whether we might reasonably believe that the torture was done specifically so that THE ACCUSED WILL SIMPLY REMAIN ACCUSED, FOREVER. The tortured confessions will not stand up in any court, and that may have been the intention all along! Another obfuscation to make sure we shall never know what actually happened on 911?
But does any political organization care? It becomes obvious that the entire nation's ability to function has been usurped by a prolonged flight from clear thinking.... Have we all finally become fully hypnotized by the contradictions and fears?
We need war crimes tribunals asap, for ALL who are responsible for the destruction of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the USA.
The enigmatic William Henry Handy Plummer was born in Maine in 1832 to puritan parents and was hanged in Bannack, Montana on a freezing winter night in 1864 by a Vigilante committee from the local Masonic lodge. His place in the history of the American West - and the history of American cinema - was written by a contemporary journalist named Thomas Dimsdale. Dimsdale's book, Vigilantes of Montana, was required reading in Miss Reese's 8th grade history class when I attended Hawthorne Elementary School in Helena in 1952. It was a florid, artless and sensational account of frontier justice, how a brave society of stalwart citizens tracked down and hanged some 22 desperados believed responsible for over a hundred robberies and killings in the early mining camps in a lawless territory prior to statehood and legal governance.
The leader of these marauding road agents was the sheriff of Bannack, Henry Plummer himself. The outlaw sheriff, of which Henry was the archetype, appears in every shitkicker western novel and movie ever hacked. Slick, dapper, respectable and refined of manner, Henry harbored a dark and secret side, presiding over a veritable reign of terror with the collusion of his deputies and their merciless associates. The gospel according to Dimsdale was sketchy on hard evidence, but more than compensated for this in lurid descriptions of outlaws apprehended in their cabins and dragged cursing and blaspheming to the gallows where they died like cowardly dogs, giving up the names of their fellow brigands in the futile hope of being spared the noose. "Ned Ray, being loosely pinioned, got his fingers between the rope and his neck," Miss Reese's thirteen year olds quoted in their book reports. "and thus prolonged his misery."
No one doubted they had it coming. Dimsdale, himself a vigilante, certainly seems convinced of the culpability of all the rascals summarily lynched, often on the word of betrayals by those condemned, elicited the day before under enhanced cervical duress. History was written by the victors. The Vigilantes and their progeny became the founding scions of Montana government and commerce. To this day their names are found on Granite cornices and street signs and old family businesses and research foundations. They built Hawthorne school. They hired Miss Reese. And so the story - and a dandy story it is - remains intact, a sacred mythology, enshrined in art and textbooks and museum plaques and the brains of tourists and school children to this day.
But lo and behold, in 1987 a couple of biographers named Ruth Mather and F.E .Boswell did some rigorous historical research and concluded that not only were Plummer and most of the others innocent of the crimes for which they were hanged, but the "reign of terror" never took place at all. There were no 100 plus murders, but only a half dozen or so, all attributed to individuals unrelated to the Sheriff's mythical road agents. It turns out that the Vigilantes were nothing more than a pack of feral Republicans purging the territory of their political adversaries, or, as in the case of Thomas Dimsdale, selling newspapers and making up exculpatory tales to protect his cronies.
Beware of good stories. Whether they are stories about secret gangs of road agents or secret societies of freedom-hatin' evildoers, they are instruments of murder as lethal as guns or knives. Prosecutorial stories cling to the mind like pit bulls, and names given up under pain of torture and death simply make fodder for self rigthteous lynch mobs. History will not judge you kindly.
Bush knew that his council planned to use torture.
Torture is a war crime and crime against humanity.
Bush approved the plans and methods, violating US national and international laws.
Bush's entire council knew this.
Bush, Cheney, Rice, Tenet, Powell, Ashcroft and all the rest knew they were violating national and international law.
And they have now ADMITTED, PUBLICLY that they have broken national and international laws in the commission of these crimes against humanity.
Is impeachment still off the table?
OR will the American public just sit idle, waiting for the next illegal war of aggression to start, hoping it doesn't interfere with the next episode of CSI?