Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Torture Time Bomb
The Bush administration's approval of the abuse of detainees is a toxic legacy for the next US president
As the US presidential election reaches a climax against the background of the financial crisis, another silent, dark, time bomb of an issue hangs over the two candidates: torture. For now, there seems to be a shared desire not to delve too deeply into the circumstances in which the Bush administration allowed the US military and the CIA to embrace abusive techniques of interrogation - including waterboarding, in the case of the CIA - which violate the Geneva conventions and the 1984 UN torture convention.
The torture issue's cancerous consequences go deep, and will cause headaches for the next president. New evidence has emerged in Congressional inquiries that throw more light on the extent to which early knowledge and approval of the abuse went to the highest levels. What does a country do when compelling evidence shows its leaders have authorised international crimes?
For three years I have followed a trail which leads unambiguously to the conclusion that the real bad eggs were not Lyndie England or others on the ground in Abu Ghraib, but the most senior officials in the White House, the Pentagon and the department of justice. Over recent months, Congress has been looking into the role of senior officials involved in the development of interrogation rules. These have attracted relatively scant attention; little by little, however, senators and congressmen have uncovered the outlines of a potentially far-reaching criminal conspiracy.
The first hearings were convened before the judiciary committee of the House of Representatives, at the instance of its chairman, Congressman John Conyers, apparently off the back of my book Torture Team. Parallel hearings have been held before the Senate armed services committee.
The evidence that has emerged is potentially devastating. It confirms, for instance, that the search for new interrogation techniques for use at Guantánamo began not with the local military but in the offices of Donald Rumsfeld and his chief lawyer, Jim Haynes. It shows that when the career military expressed objections on legal grounds, Haynes intervened to stop the normal process of review. And it shows a previously unknown interplay between the department of defence and the CIA: a visit to Guantánamo in September 2002 by the administration's most senior lawyers was followed days later by a senior CIA lawyer, to brief on the new techniques. "If someone dies while aggressive techniques are being used," he explained, "the backlash of attention would be severely detrimental."
Last month the Senate armed services committee received new material from Condoleezza Rice, the first cabinet-level official to confirm high-level involvement in discussions on interrogation techniques. "I participated in a number of meetings in 2002 and 2003 ... at which issues relating to detainees in US custody, including interrogation issues, were discussed," she said. Those present at such meetings included Rumsfeld, attorney general John Ashcroft, Colin Powell, Paul Wolfowitz and CIA director George Tenet. The meetings, which concerned the CIA programme, "occurred inside the White House". Rice confirmed she was aware of the existence of, but did not read, the justice department legal advice of August 1 2002 that abandoned the international definition of torture and replaced it with a definition drawn from a US Medicare statute.
Buried away in this testimony lies the most dangerous material of all: evidence which may establish that abuses on detainees in Iraq in September 2003, in the period perhaps including the events at Abu Ghraib, were the result of decisions taken at the highest levels of the administration. The administration has long proclaimed it did not allow aggressive interrogations in Iraq, since the Geneva conventions applied. Last month we learned this was false: not everyone had protection under Geneva. If you were considered to be a terrorist, you had no protection at all. A senior US intelligence officer visited Iraq in September 2003. He witnessed abusive interrogation techniques that violated Geneva and complained. The response? He was told the techniques "were pre-approved by DoD GC or higher". DoD GC is the general counsel at the department of defence, Jim Haynes. Who could be higher? His boss: Rumsfeld.
I have testified before Congress on these issues, and have been asked if there should be criminal investigations and prosecutions. At the very least, the next US president must ensure the full facts are established. It will then be for others to decide what follows. But if the US doesn't get its own house in order and restore its reputation for the rule of law, others will surely step in.
33 Comments so far
Show AllA deeper and even darker question, if such a thing is thinkable, goes unanswered: why torture? The unspoken assumption is that torture is primarily a means of obtaining accurate information, and that one resorts to it only in moments of direst emergency. I think this is nonsense. I think one tortures not to *obtain* information but to *send* it. Think what friends and foes alike must say to themselves upon discovering that the strongest force in the world is prepared to use such techniques. The use of torture is surely nothing less than a perverted instrument of foreign policy.
Torture is not a method of obtaining information. Every child undergoing a beating knows that one confesses to everything and anything in the hope of stopping the agony. Torture is actually a means of instilling terror in either the population in general or members of a given group in order to control them or render them paralyzed. Secret, sudden disappearances--purges--of the sort carried out by Stalin is another method of achieving the same result. The whole of society lapses into a state of fear and anomie, not knowing what will happen, when it will happen, and to whom it will happen and so is incapable of posing any challenge to the government.
I think that another facet to all this is quite simply, sadism. That, combined with a master race nationalism at the very top, and you have automatic justification for torture. Also, the my way, or the highway mentality that claims there is only one way to deal with "terrorists", aka enemies, is an unhealthy and incestuous philosophy which is willfully blind to reason and discipline. You see, discipline is one of the cornerstones of modern (and appropriate) interrogation techniques used for many decades by this nation. Discipline and patience, when dealing with adversaries, is essential if the intent is to extract meaningful intelligence. If however, the intent is vengeance, with no regard for actually safeguarding anyone, you get the kind of chaos that this vengeance obsessed gang of thugs have produced. The very language used by Cheney and Bush, regarding "destroying" the terrorists, says almost all that need be said about their motivations and techniques. The appropriate wording there should have been "stopping" the terrorists, which can include "destroying" if necessary, but does not only myopically focus on vendetta and punishment.
Discipline was what was missing in all these activities. Simple humanity was never in attendance either. You had small minded creatures who found themselves the stewards of great power, who drank of that power, and thus became drunk, and acted accordingly. They violated the law over and over again, without consequence, and thus became more emboldened with each new crime that they perpetrated successfully. In this, the US Congress is an accessory after the fact to ALL of the crimes of this administration. They facilitated every savage act by doing nothing to stop the savagery. They have long since had more than enough evidence to bring every member of this administration to justice, but instead chose the political path which turned away from their duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and instead focused exclusively on the possible political consequences of action vs inaction. They chose inaction, and the crimes of this administration thus continued unchallenged, and they continued (to this day) on their path of torture and vengeance.
So...lots of blame to go round, but more than blame, justice needs to be pursued to whatever dark holes these American terrorists are hiding in. So many of them that it can truly be characterized as a vast, right wing conspiracy. They marched in lock-step with Bush, and gave him every single thing he ever desired, including specious and illegal "opinions" that codified the brutality and torture, that he used in his vendetta against all non-Americans who might even think of bein' a "terrorist". I believe in the end, it was all about vengeance, and power corrupting. Small men and women, who saw themselves as gods of vengeance and retribution, who actively removed all of the trappings of civilization in their mad embrace of the end justifying the means.
Heh
Obaminable
Nice, blame Bushco's use of torture on Obama. Sound reasoning there...
"the real bad eggs were not Lyndie England or others on the ground in Abu Ghraib" I agree that neither candidate, nor Congress will act on this newest information. Their complicity is too great. However, would it be possible for England and others who took the rap and were prosecuted to file charges? I think if they were offered sufficient representation, they might. It would seem to me that there is sufficient evidence that they could take it all the way to the Supreme Court. Ah yes, the Court! It does, indeed, help to have friends in High places.
Can Bush pardon himself?
But I could be wrong !
Lawyers should uphold the law. I see so much promise and talented lawyers. They do have a leadership role in our society. Looks at Mr. Sands, and Keith Olbermann, both attorneys. Without attorneys, who would be calling the administration on its wrong-doing?
Accusations by progressive bloggers like myself could simply be dismissed by the guilty claiming the charges are motivated by partisanship. Politics have become more of a shield for wrong-doing and obfuscation for the guilty than any constructive enterprise.
You would think that an accusation like approving torture would not be dismissed, but it has been. I think it was Hitler who said that the more they do to you (the people), the more you don't believe it's happening to you. The movie Children of Men shows just how far things can go, and not overnight in one big crystalnacht, either. The decisions are made at the top, deliberate, calculated, and with full premeditation, not only confirming that the wrongdoers know what they are doing is wrong, but that they are trying to escape culpability.
A lot of this first popped up with the Plame outing. A few thousand bloggers and others made a storm but the mainstream media was too ingratiated with the administration to think it would have outed her on purpose, or not without a good reason. Assumptions about the exceptionalism of Presidential authority have lead to the worst kinds of behavior. It's high time those who break the laws were made to suffer by them, and not just hide behind their fat pensions and ill gotten gains.
As before, a few of us shout into the wind. Few will listen, so these behaviors are likely to repeat themselves, further diminishing our republic. Someone said we are only as good a society as how we treat the weakest among us. Those prisoners, many of them innocent players in the Great Game of petropolitics and fake terror, were abused while under our custody. If we can't treat them with dignity and respect then we as a people lack any sense of honor, fairness, or compassion.
Obama's a lawyer. He's a professor of constitutional law. Due to these two facts, he is far more qualified and much more likely than McCain to seek justice against the "top administration officials" who perpetrated these violations. I know that most of the commenters here doubt that Obama would do any such thing, but I believe it's possible.
.Delusional failure to see reality.
Obama could be almost anything , but being a politican trumps all else....He will not raise one single objection, should he win the office he will not initiate one single investigation. Law degree be damned he is a democrat and thus his first loyalty is not to his nation but to his party. The same can be said, I hasten to add, to the members of the other party....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I hope you are wrong. For if he doesn't do a number of things, not the silly stuff like billions to world poverty or pie-in-the-sky, but investigations, removing our troops as soon as practical, he won't last long. He's got two years.
BellingtonTheCat October 18th, 2008 6:23 pm
"Obama's a lawyer. He's a professor of constitutional law. Due to these two facts, he is far more qualified and much more likely than McCain to seek justice against the "top administration officials" who perpetrated these violations. I know that most of the commenters here doubt that Obama would do any such thing, but I believe it's possible."
Obama as a senator came out against the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. This delusion by some that he is going to make a 180 degree turn once he becomes President if he does is just that a delusion perpetrated by wishful thinkers.
Lobo Gris
I cannot belive that you think Obama would to this to Pelosi, Harmon, etc. Cmon!
Also, and I dont care, but it is irritating that this continues to be taken as fact--Obama is NOT a "professor"--he is not a PhD. He was an instructor for awhile.
BTW--you are aware that most of the Senate ARE lawyers--or at least a hell of alot--I'll get you a link.
175 members of the House are attornies. 59 of the Senate.
18 House are PhDs. 11 are MDs.
None of them seem to be filing chargse--except Kucinich.
AND the House Dems are calling for his hide for daring to file them!!
YIKES! Fox bullshit being repeated on C.D. and no one's calling KDelphi on it!?
Full disclosure: Not only am I NOT voting for Obama, I DON'T LIKE THE CHARACTER of the man. He's just another selfish, lying, scheming (albeit talented) politician.
Do you really not understand that a doctorate in jurisprudence is equivalent (or better?) than a doctorate in whatever?
Check the university's records. This has already been checked and reported (even in the tepid corporate media!)
The University lists Obama as an adjunct professor; not assistant professor, not instructor.
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
And W and McCain always tell the truth, right?
Projection.
Thanks for pointing out the PhD thing.
You're right that Obama would not personally indict Pelosi et al, but if a special prosecutor were appointed, well then... yeah like that will ever happen, right?
To be fair, CSPAN does show that Kucinich has denounced Bush for implementing open use of US government torture in his call to have him impeached. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6IjnbKZOVM Why does he avoid this issue on his web site though? Go ask Dennis? I would think that this is where any activist against US government torture would want to highlight his opposition to the policy?
Barack Obama cannot prosecute the torturers, simply because the Democratic Party OKed the idea, too. Obama, with any personal character at all, could have come out and denounced his party's OK for using torture, but instead he preferred not to. In fact, none of the Democratic Party big shots have denounced the use of US government torture, and I would have to include Dennis Kucinich in that list of the complicit, also. Don't believe me? Then go to his site and see the BIG ZERO side step and avoid the issue of US torture of Pentagon held POWs entirely. http://kucinich.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=1563
Did anyone with half a brain need an investigation to know all this
wasn't just a "few bad apples?" Surely not anyone that has served in
the military forces. It certainly isn't all Bush's fault, but he and
his henchmen were the driving force. The chickenshit Democrats just
allowed it to happen. Every person who voted to OK torture should be
waterboarded to within one second of drowning, about three times.
decrepittex October 18th, 2008 2:35 pm
"It certainly isn't all Bush's fault, but he and his henchmen were the driving force."
Yes it is because he was in charge as President and at least condoned it if he didn't actively encourage it, which I believe he did.
Lobo Gris
Indeed, waterboarded and then kiln dried until they tell us what to say to our
grandchildren when they ask "what did you do during the Warcrime, Grandpa?"
"If you were considered to be a terrorist, you had no protection at all."
Meanwhile, there's at least a half-million Americans on a secret-not-so-secret "Terrorist Watch List." So, there's that to ponder...
Obviously, not a single member of the torture regime will ever even have a wrist slapped. Many, however, will earn millions in the next few years as "authors," FOX commentators, WSJ, NYT and National Review op-ed-ers, "security consultants," lobbyists, seated directors on the board, and defense-corp VPs.
That is why our USA is the greatest country to have ever existed in the history of the universe...
Can President Bush issue a pardon to persons in his administration, against future prosecution (for any number of things), before he leaves office? If he does, would it be legal?
Doubtful. One thing for sure, he cannot pardon himself for murder. There are many entities just waiting for January 21st to prosecute Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice, Wolfowitz et al for murder. "Hey, sinner man, where ya gonna run to all on that day......"
"At the very least, the next US president must ensure the full facts are established."
______________________
Well, expecting the very least is a prudent benchmark.
But I fear that it will not be achieved.
If all goes as it seems that it WILL go, the next US president will eloquently blow off the necessity for any rigorous investigation, not to mention legal consquences, of the criminal misfeasors who perpetrated such a broad range of extra-legal atrocity and depredation.
No, no-- rather, there will be sonorous, Lincolnesque pronouncements citing the need to move on, to devote our collective time and energy towards HEALING and REPAIRING the pernicious internal conflict and disunity that has beset The Greatest Nation on Earth. We will be encouraged to embrace each other, to offer each other the sign of peace, to put our noses to the grindstone and our shoulders to the wheel, to drag the Greatest Nation on Earth out of the ditch and back to the head of the Procession of Nations on the Road of Progress.
See how easy it is to talk that talk once one gets started? Why, it practically writes itself!
Oh, the New Lincoln may be shrewd enough to appoint a commission or committee to sift through some of the scraps on the discarded heap of offal-- in fact, he may well put his Best Men (and Women) on it! This much might be deemed essential for shoring up support from those few who are not bedazzled by the Redeemer's ascension to the Throne of Power.
And if anyone is still paying attention when this specially-constituted body issues its Final Report, it will be duly noted that the Report contains some startling revelations and some REALLY scathing conclusions about the Bush maladministration's heinous flouting of the Rule of Law. However, it will "stop short" of "recommending" further investigation or prosecution. Thus, everyone will be vindicated, to the gratification and relief of all practical, sensible citizens.
But there will be no handcuffing and frog-marching of war criminals and torture criminals to the prison cells they so richly deserve. After all, that would have an appearance of malice and vindictiveness, and would only serve to enrage the temporarily-dispossessed wing of our noble duopoly. Such renewed and abiding contentiousness is hardly conducive to the bipartisan unity We the People "mandated"-- in fact, taking a hard line is plainly antithetical to this goal.
We've still got a Global War on Terror to win, y'know!
Besides-- no decent, reasonable person believes in seeking justice if it risks the appearance of ungraciousness! There are simply too many more important issues with which We the People ought to be occupying ourselves!
.I gotta say; a well reasoned and rather mausing post. You are a welcome addition to this imperfect forum....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
imperfect? Speak for yourself! (lol)
I will cry as soon as I stop laughing...as they say, "its funny cause ite true".
Why hasn't Obama come out against torture?
Answer: because Democrats were in on it. Pelosi was present in the torture meetings. Democrats are repulsive:
Pelosi and Torture
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=258258
When I read the above statement I immediately looked at the date of the
article. It seems John has changed his mind about torture, tax cuts for
the rich, and several other things since he's running of President. That
doesn't change the fact that the Democrats were in on it, but McSame
doesn't deserve a pass either.
Who's giving John a pass?
The article in the link stated McCain opposed torture. He did until he changed
his mind.
What proves my point that McClone and Obaminable are one and the same. Obama remains silent on torture, why? What kind of sick progressive remains silent on torture?