Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Trail of Torture
That the White House authorised 'waterboarding' is disturbing. But that no one in mainstream US politics seems to care is worse
The revelation, in yesterday's Washington Post, that the Bush administration "issued a pair of secret memos to the CIA in 2003 and 2004 that explicitly endorsed the agency's use of interrogation techniques such as waterboarding against al-Qaida suspects" will increase calls for the administration to be held to account for its actions.
It is unlikely, though, that this revelation will lead to significant activity, beyond adding more voices to grassroots impeachment campaigns in the United States - although it may lead to a strengthening of plans in various European countries to indict senior officials for war crimes. As law professor Scott Horton explained in June, the best that opponents of the regime can hope for is that the "Bush administration officials who pushed torture will need to be careful about their travel plans."
The problem for all parties concerned is that the administration itself still refuses to concede that it has engaged in torture, and is being allowed to get away with it in the two places where opposition could really count: the Senate and the House of Representatives. Rather than pursuing senior officials, house Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi declared that impeachment was "off the table" after the Democrats gained a majority in the House of Representatives two years ago. A month earlier, politicians had endorsed the executive's attempts to shield itself and its employees from any liability for their actions by passing the Military Commissions Act, parts of which were clearly intended to exempt US officials from being prosecuted for war crimes.
Freed from direct challenges, the administration has, instead, attempted to stifle all mention of torture in its dealings with prisoners seized in the "war on terror".
A case in point is the British resident Binyam Mohamed. According to his lawyers at the legal action charity Reprieve, Mr Mohamed, who was seized in Pakistan in April 2002, was sent to Morocco by the CIA (before the agency brought torture "in-house"), where proxy torturers extracted a number of false confessions from him. As a result, he was accused of plotting to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in a US city, and was put forward for trial by military commission at Guantánamo.
However, just last week, when a judge in Washington, DC finally had the opportunity to review his case, the US justice department chose to drop the charges relating to the "bomb plot" rather than pursue them, presumably because senior officials were aware that the entire trail of decision-making as to why Mr Mohamed was rendered to Morocco led to the highest levels of government, and to the kinds of discussions between the CIA and senior officials - including Vice President Dick Cheney and defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld - that were discussed in yesterday's article in the Washington Post.
Even so, Mr Mohamed may still face the same charges in a trial by military commission, because the defence department, safe from judicial scrutiny, still believes that it can pursue prosecutions in a system that is so rigged that, when one of the prosecutors, Lt Col Darrel Vandeveld, resigned two weeks ago, he expressed his profound doubts that the system was "capable of delivering justice".
The fact that some of these cases - like that of Mr Mohamed - involve the alleged use of extraordinary rendition and torture by or on behalf of the CIA only serves to confirm that even confirmed critics and opponents of the administration's detention and interrogation policies in the "war on terror" are a long way from holding senior officials to account. Perhaps the greatest shame, however, is that out on the campaign trail, where these issues ought to count for something, they are not being mentioned at all.
19 Comments so far
Show AllTorture is as american as apple pie and the SAW series. The reality shows haven't quite caught up with the american appetite for cruelty and degradation, but I'm sure that TORTURE ISLAND has at least been pitched to the networks.
Nothing exists.
I am going to go out on a limb here and mention some history of the CIA/OSS that relates. That would be Operation Paperclip, which folded uncounted thousands of Nazi "middle-management" into the US intelligence services immediately following WW2. This was a blatantly pragmatic attempt to use the hatred of the Soviet Union that was shared by Nazi German and the United States, to manipulate and use former members of the Third Reich.
I believe we are now seeing the fruition of that evil collaboration. And simply put, coincidences like two President's of the United States being direct descendants of a Nazi sympathizer and supporter, namely Prescott Bush, don't happen. Add to that, one of them (HW) being a former director of CIA, and you have a very strong case for collusion with the CIA in installing these criminals in the White House.
Prescott Bush established the Bush family financial legacy from the blood, and on the backs of, millions of Jews who were slaughtered in the Nazi concentration camps. His direct financial aid to the Third Reich was demonstrably responsible for, among other things, production of Xylon B, which was used to gas the Jews who died in the Holocaust. His financing also provided a great deal of raw materials for the Nazi war machine. Simply put, a war machine like that doesn't just happen out of thin air, it was a multi-generational, multi-national effort by industrialists and the bankers who floated their loans.
And one of the things that the current miscreant-in-chief has in common with the Nazi's, is the use of the term "enhanced interrogation" to describe torture. That was what the Nazi's referred to their torture as...to sanitize it for general consumption, much like W has done in his terrorism.
America went through the glass very darkly when it enlisted murderers from the Third Reich, and we are still suffering the effects of that hideous decision all these years later. And the current President has a direct lineage to that time, and to the crimes committed by the Nazi's, and by his grandfather, Prescott Bush.
I used to vote for Democrats as the lesser of the evils. Since Pelosi, I find I cannot do this any longer.
Frederick Johnson -
Want to radically reform the national security establishment?
I think what it will take is a major expose of things like the CIA's involvement in drug trafficking or white collar criminality, or perhaps NSA and DIA's black ops involvement in dropping the ball and covering up what really happened on 9/11.
How do you expose such super secret classified skeletons to the light of day?
Well, the new Congress could do it through its subpoena/witness immunity powers, creating a forum for whistle blowers past and present to step forward without fear of reprisal.
Or maybe Barack Obama could make this the primary subject matter for his first national fireside chat.....
Bill from Saginaw
Off the table because someone was in bed with Bush?
I'm not entirely convinced that the actual reporters are at fault for not reporting and constantly bringing up these atrocities. I think these decisions to “forget” or not/stop reporting things like Abu Ghraib, the torture, which I am also not convinced has stopped, come from the corporate bosses. Between the constant dumbing down of the citizens of the US with mindless infotainment and the constant fear-mongering that goes on the rest of the time, I think this is prep-work by the corporations that actually own the country so that we continue our way into a dictatorial society, where dissent is not just criminalized but seen as treasonous (Ann Coulter said, in 2001, that anyone that disagrees with the president should be tried for treason), where we accept our diminution to virtual slavery and pop consumerism.
FrederickJohnson October 16th, 2008 5:42 pm:
“So when are you going to vote for pols who will actually fight to ABOLISH the CIA or at least push for a MAJOR REFORM of the CIA?”
I do every election. I also want to see major reform of the entire military-industrial complex to the point that it is completely eliminated. I vote for people who want the same things. Such people aren't in the two biggest parties.
The corporate adgenda is to make money, so when a story like Abu Ghraib breaks it's big corporate news because it stirs up hate and discontent (thus priming the audience for propaganda and advertizing). When a reporter actually investigates an ongoing story about torture and the CIA, the secret government - that doesn't seem to be very interesting to most Americans. They might change the channel so it's out of the news. The spectacle is always the story it tells about itself, and it's always the hero of it's own story.
So when are you going to vote for pols who will actually fight to ABOLISH the CIA or at least push for a MAJOR REFORM of the CIA? This article is nothing but old news. Happens all the time. Now fight for the obvious solution !
Thats right! Nixon and Kissinger really vamped up the torture machine while they were in power. Now, even after people have seen the pictures of torture from this horrid Bush regime; there is still very little outrage from the citizens. It just fades into the memory banks along with last years American Idol.
This is the problem. We are so continually distracted in this society, that every important issue threatens to fade into the past very quickly. And the press has complete control over this tendency. It's weird how the war appears to have taken a backseat to the economy, to the point where it's rarely discussed anymore. And now Joe the Plumber is more important. At least until the football game comes on.
Regarding torture, and holding high US officials accountable for authorizing torture, Andy Worthington writes "Perhaps the greatest shame however is that out on the campaign trail, where these issues ought to count for something, they are not being mentioned at all."
No small wonder.
The time to raise the issue of torture as official US government policy was in the presidential campaign of 2004.
The person properly to have been held politically accountable was George W. Bush - who personally signed off on the use of torture against global war on terror detainees, based upon written advice from his legal counsel Alberto Gonzales, his Vice President, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
The person who should have taken up this issue was Democratic nominee John Kerry, who had Abu Ghraib and all of its related blowback horrors handed to him upon a silver platter.
And unquestionably the time to have held this political accountability session was the candidates' first joint presidential debate - one and one half hours' of prime time TV, moderated by Jim Lehrer of PBS, which was by agreement dedicated solely to discussion of foreign affairs, and military/national security matters.
Yet miraculously, mysteriously - despite the fact that the top secret classified torture memos had already leaked into the public domain, the damning photos from Abu Ghraib and Gitmo had circulated across the globe, and thousands of people had demonstrated and even rioted in the streets in angry anti-American reaction throughout the Muslim world - this 90 minute window of opportunity passed without the words "torture" or "Geneva Conventions" or "rendition" ever being uttered. Not once. Little George stood there smirking and got a complete pass.
How could this possibly happen? To paraphrase a sage observation Sherlock Holmes once made to his sidekick Dr. Watson, what is really suspicious here is the fact that the dog did not bark.
Fast forward to presidential campaign 2008.
Barack Obama would be an absolute fool's fool to try to raise US torture policy as a presidential campaign issue against torture survivor John McCain, of all people.
McCain is totally inoculated from partisan attack regarding what are euphemistically termed "harsh interrogation techniques" in the American press given his former POW credentials. Any effort by the Democratic party - now - to pin accountability for this particular sin of the Bush regime upon Senator John McCain would be the height of election year tactical folly.
The Obama campaign recognizes this. Barack Obama goes out of his way to openly concede that at least in this limited area, McCain the "sometimes maverick" actually did reach across the beltway aisle to head up a legitimately bipartisan Congressional confrontation (or sorts) with the Bush White House over the torture of persons held in US military custody back in 2006. Because the Senate Democratic leadership basically held John McCain's coat for him in that ill-fated endeavor, GOP candidate McCain is about the last person in American political life who should be targeted to take blame today "out on the campaign trail, where these issues should matter...."
That dog that didn't bark back in 2004 is for sure not going to hunt this fall.
Bill from Saginaw
I hate to be the one to say this, but it's cowardice..American Citizen cowardice. Maybe the left needs a "basic training" program to give its citizens a backbone. It works for the USMC, but then again it turns them into mindless killing clones...most, not all, lest I step on the feet of the conscientious objectors. WE need the passion of the South Americans!
I think that the yanks would be concerned if it was a white yank who was tortured by another government. But am not too surprised that their government and media don't much care about what happens to others. They claim to be a xtian country, yet will do unto others what they wont tollerate for themselves...
I think that the average US Citizen will begin to care, when the first US Soldier is tortured to death by a foreign government, and the signed torture authorization by the US government is waved in their face when they object.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
I hate to say it, but this probably has happened and they will never tell us about it. How could they continue to recruit?
I encourage people to write to the World Court in the Hague. Let's hope they will investigate the use of torture by the US government - US courts won't.
there's just so much complicity...
One problem is that the crimes are bipartisan. Although the Bush Administration is more blantant than previous administrations, it's hardly the first to authorize torture and other gruesome, dispicable crimes against God and man.
Nancy Pelosi, my "representative", was apparently briefed on some of the Administration's torture techniques and kept quiet about it. And, surprise, surprise, impeachment's off the table. It was only later that the truth was leaked. We have to wonder what other crimes have been discussed and planned behind closed doors.
To me it's scary to realize that criminality of US leaders is matched by the apathy of US citizens. Though I find a bit of hope in sites like Commondreams where commentators seem at least somewhat aware of a reality beyond the bipartisan myths.
Thats what happens when the US Government hands over billions and billions of free (stolen) dollars to the Corporate Media. Have you NOT noticed that the MSM has given the Bush Ctime Family, and the Neocon Fascist regime a free ride after 9/11? Was it not that a week prior to 9/11, the biggest story of the year was that the Pentagon is missing between 2.8 and 3.2 TRILLION dollars, and a week later I guess that never happened cause it is never mentioned again. Or the fact we get the THREAT and FEAR of Terrorism shoved down our throats on a daily/hourly basis, and yet the MSM can carry on the conjecture of an O.J. Simpson show trial, and yet drop the story of the Anthrax Attacks when it is found out "that hey, the Attack came from the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT!" The nuumber of examples is almost endless with this regime.
YOU want your Nation back?
I doubt it. Apethtic America deserves what is being doled out!
Coffeelover,,,,,
No one in mainstream US politics seems to care because no one in the mainstream US electorate seems to care.
Thus, this grave and troubling issue affords no opportunity for political pandering-- so it's off the table, down there with all of the other matters of consequence that any person of principle would feel obliged to confront.
Politicians, and especially the duopoly's anointed candidates for high office, have neither the time nor the interest to stir up negative feelings on subjects that promise no political advantage or gain for them whatsoever.