Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- How Germany Is Getting to 100 Percent Renewable Energy
- FBI's Abuse of the Surveillance State is the Real Scandal Needing Investigation
- Bailout 'Of the People, By the People' Exposes Bankers' Greed
- I’m Black and I Want More “Stuff” and “Things”: An Open Letter to Bill O’Reilly
- Human Intelligence Peaked Thousands of Years Ago: Study
Popular content
Today's Top News
Torture Smoking Gun?
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) opened a hearing on the Bush administration's torture policy quoting Tallyrand: "The greatest danger in times of crisis comes from the zeal of those who are inexperienced." Whitehouse promised to separate the "truth" from its "bodyguard of lies." In doing so, the former federal prosecutor brought the shadowy world of intelligence into Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Former star FBI interrogator Ali Soufan, widely described as the bureau's best and most effective interrogator working in the Arabic language, testified off-camera and behind a wooden partition. Concerned for his and his family's security, he made the unusual demand a part of his agreement to appear and testify.
The effort to destroy the Zelikow memo is not just evidence of standard record-keeping practice; it may well spring from recognition that the memo might be used as evidence that the Bush administration was engaged in criminality. |
The hearing produced two significant developments as well as a great deal of political rhetoric. Soufan's testimony focused on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. Throughout the history of the torture debate, the Bush administration has cited this as a triumph of its techniques. Sen. Whitehouse read Bush's September 6, 2006, White House statement making one of these claims. Soufan, who was personally present through the process, called the Bush claims a "half-truth," accurate as to the circumstances of Abu Zubaydah's capture and detention, but not as to the claimed successes using highly coercive techniques. One of the Justice Department's torture memos (from May 2005) contained a similar claim that actionable intelligence was obtained "once enhanced techniques were employed." Soufan termed this a lie. He also noted that successful interrogations of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Jose Padilla, which gained useful intelligence, occurred before the introduction of the Bush program and therefore couldn't be claimed as success stories for it. In his remarks, Soufan sharply repudiated the harsh techniques he observed. "These techniques... are ineffective, slow, and unreliable and, as a result, harmful to our efforts to defeat al Qaeda," he said. He also downplayed claims that there was a dispute between the FBI and CIA about the use of the Bush techniques. CIA interrogators agreed with his assessment, he noted.
Philip Zelikow, a lawyer and history professor who had served as a counselor to Condoleezza Rice at the State Department, testified that the Justice Department had thwarted legislation sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) that prohibited cruel, inhuman, and degrading techniques on detainees. He noted that McCain and other sponsors understood the legislation as a prohibition on waterboarding and other harsh techniques, but through legal sleight of hand, Steven Bradbury, then head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, had nevertheless found that the legislation was ineffective to make the expected changes. Zelikow recorded his opposition to this view in his own memo, which he disseminated widely within the Bush administration. It was made clear to him that his memo was not appreciated, and, moreover, an effort was made to collect and destroy copies of the memo. One copy has now been identified in the records of the State Department, he noted. Its declassification and release are anticipated shortly.
The story surrounding the efforts to corral and destroy the Zelikow memo is more than a curious vignette. Lawyers studying the issue of criminal liability of the memo writers are focused on evidence of mens rea-a state of mind that reflects recognition of criminal wrongdoing. The effort to destroy the memo is not just evidence of standard record-keeping practice; it may well spring from recognition that the memo might be used as evidence that the Bush administration was engaged in criminality.
Republicans called two legal experts to offer opinions but no fact witnesses. This raised the question of whether they have a CIA interrogator who is ready or willing to make a case to support Cheney's claims about the efficacy of torture.
In opening remarks, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) leveled a direct attack on former Vice President Dick Cheney, saying he was "misleading the American people" with claims that Bush-era techniques had been effective. "Nothing I have seen-including the two documents to which former Vice President Cheney has repeatedly referred-indicates that the torture techniques... were necessary," Feingold said. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) entered the debate insisting the hearing was "not really fair to" the Bush administration. "I don't know whether this is actually pursuing the nobility of the law or a political stunt," he said. Graham offered a grilling of the former lead FBI interrogator, insisting that his view was "not the whole picture." However, Graham stumbled during the hearing, citing a debunked and now-retracted statement by former CIA agent John Kiriakou about the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah and was corrected by the witness for his mistake.
Graham was the only Republican to attend the hearing as a questioner, and the Republican side offered no fact witnesses of their own. Soufan's and Zelikow's presentations weren't refuted or weakened. For now the Republican pushback on the torture issue consists of attacks on the credibility of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi-what she knew and when she was told about the Bush administration techniques. Yet that issue has not caught fire and remains distant from the heart of the controversy. The Senate hearing set the stage for the release of the Justice Department's ethics report conducted while Bush was still in office. Zelikow called for a special investigation during his testimony and disclosed that evening on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show that the special prosecutor appointed under Bush to probe the destruction of CIA videotapes of torture, John Durham, has expanded to cover the CIA's failure to provide information to the 9/11 Commission about torture. Sen. Whitehouse has declared that he would chair new hearings featuring the Bush administration lawyers after the release of the Justice Department ethics report. Then the focus will fall on the possible impeachment of former OLC chief Jay Bybee, now a federal appeals judge, and bar discipline of other lawyers. The issue continues to build regardless of what the Obama White House wishes.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


21 Comments so far
Show AllMr. Horton, you have been trying for years to shed light on the criminals formerly in office. Please, keep trying, we need people like you. Thank you.
The Cheney argument is specious at best. The fact of the matter is that TORTURE IS ILLEGAL AND WATERBOARDING IS TORTURE. All the BS being bandied about is just an attempt to muddy the waters. Even IF torture worked that would not make it legal.
You are absolutely right. And this point is often lost.
Effectiveness or not is really irrelevant.
It is and has been illegal to torture our detainees and these people systematically attempted to do something illegal and wrong. What's more they KNEW it was wrong and they knew they were in danger of prosecution later. Hence the behavior of secrecy, destroying tapes, trying to destroy the paper trail, and then trying to change the backstory while keeping a lid on any evidence that contradicts their view.
(of course, the cherry on top of this cake is that torture is not effective)
peggy - be careful if you happen to get close to cheney - in a drunken rage - as he often finds himself - he may try to shoot you in the face with a skeet gun
for my part - i would like to see cheney tased a few times, then waterboarded for a while then hung by his toes with piano wire on the mall in washington district of colombia
that's just for starters
I prefer the possibility of him living a decade or more, after having an artificial conscience installed.
For him to experience empathically what he has wrought, and be shamed and ashamed is "torture" enough, in fact it isn't torture at all but his new humanity reminding himself you he really is.
As for your conception to begin various violence and physical tortures, as some sort of revenge and punishment -- you will certainly be made less human for doing so.
¿ Is that a cost that you're willing to pay, to become "like" him ?
Namaste
I agree 100%.
I would be willing to bet that even his tiny little vestigal conscience will not be quiet unless it is drowned with copious amounts of alcohol and prescription drugs.
His pretty little daughter must have seen this growing up. Is she so hungry for Daddy's approval that she will say anything? Probably. Most people are slaves to their parent's approval well into their forties.
I would bet that if the dick called her and said "I accept your lifestyle and love you unconditionally" it would save her soul. Within a year she would become a liberal.
The dick is no dummy. He knows this, and would far rather keep his daughter on a short rope to defend him on Fox News. Even the happiness of his daughter is worth nothing to him compared to wrong being right, black being white, and the shotgun away from his mouth.
The desire for revenge runs deep. I understand your motivations, Cheney and his Repug crowd stripped away our delusions that the USA even tries to be a force for human rights and dignity in the world. I too feel pain and anger at this.
But I would never torture him for those reasons.
On the other hand, I would torture him to extract some sort of obviously false confessions. Not out of a sense of revenge, but because I honestly believe that this man has no conscience. I think The only way he could see that torture produces wholly unreliable information, that all it does do is confirm the prejudices of the torturer, is for him to be humiliated and denigrated himself to the point where he admits to crimes and perversions that everyone knows are false.
Nothing short of the personal experience, I believe, would demonstrate to him the error of his assumptions. He will, even if put on trial and found guilty and even if he does jail time, go to his grave absolutely certain of the connection between Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden because he got that "information" from torture...which he just "knows" works.
Sioux Rose
Like some in this forum, my instincts (along with things I've read) convince me that 911 was at least in part an inside job. With that being said, what form of evidence could be produced by torturing the wrong persons? It seems to me that the "leaders" wanted to fuel and then satisfy the public's lust for blood. Vengeance R' U.S style. Targets were needed to project the angst from 911.
This nation, the capital punishment capital of the world, a make-war state that sees violence AS entertainment, required blood sacrifices. That is at least part of what all this torture of unfortunate persons caught in bounty-hunter style drift nets has been for. America has become the dark side. Its better angels are fighting for a return to the light, and of course that requires owning the offenses and making reparations, and then refortifying the founding ideals that could help transform and heal this land of too many lost and/or spiritually broken souls.
Well said....I might add that the wrong folks were/are being tortured...the victims on the slabs should be Cheney, Bush I and II, Wolfowitz, Rummy, Rice, Rove and on and on. Want the truth of 9/11? Use their "enhanced interrogation" techniques on the true perpetrators. If you believe the "official story" of 9/11, then pay close attention to the smoke and mirror commission. It's only being presented to further entrench the lies of 9/11 into the maleable. TV deadened minds of the masses. If you question even certain aspects of 9/11, then read this....(although, I believe you have already, Sioux Rose)
http:/www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Collateral_Damage_911.pdf
Sioux Rose
ANGRY: After just reading Glenn Greenwald's piece the thought occured to me that were the U.S. to deliver Cheney in a cage to Afghanistan or Iraq and allow the people to throw rotten fruit at him, like a monkey left in that cage for all to sneer at, his privacy utterly violated (even in how he has to relieve himself of wastes) might help alleviate some of the massive hatred to the U.S. for torturing so many persons, when not outright killing them. If war is blood sacrifice on a collective scale, let's be honest about it, that's what it essentially is: then better to donate ONE highly-valued specimen and allow the masses their way with him. Perhaps that will defuse some of the vengeance others have amassed with good reason. I get angry, too.
There are many problems with the view that 911 was an inside job.
The biggest problems are physical ones, despite the conspiracy theorists claims there is actually ZERO evidence that any sort of controlled demolition took place of any of these buildings.
Their is, on the other hand, a lot of evidence that what we witnessed on Television was what happened.
Please Siouxrose, I respect your opinions a great deal, do not go down this slippery conspiracy slope.
We were hit by terrorists who have long had grievances with the USA and planned this event carefully....just as we had been hit in the past and just as previous attempts on the WTC had been made....do not fall into the trap of believing that one of the most incompetent administrations we have had in many decades could pull off this technically sophisticated demolition and then further pull off the extensive cover-up.
It just doesn't stack up to serious critical analysis.
Sioux Rose
PHYSICS: I appreciate that you respect my opinions. Would you not argue that a PRETEXT was needed to 1. Set into motion the Project for a New American Century and its plan for "oil/gas dominion" 2. Cast a smokescreen thick enough to dissuade the opinion-makers from focusing on a VERY dubious election and its "result" 3. Own a way to thwart the precious liberties of citizens 4. Push the agenda of the Neo-con crowd who exalt the concept of a "Unitary Executive" (Every authoritarians' closet wet dream) and 5. Continue the shadow government that the Bush family and its enablers are quite influential to. 6. Other
Serious critical analysis would at the least call for a serious investigation as opposed to defining WHO was responsible before any such thing, while simultaneously destroying evidence and LYING to New Yorkers that they get back to shopping and breathe in all that perfectly safe air.
Our government has lied to us as a matter of routine for generations, but I don't believe there was ever a time where LIES were the predominant basis for policies on both domestic and international scales. To not believe in a "conspiracy" under these circumstances in my mind qualifies one as inordinately naive or possessed of a rather faux-patriotic blindspot.
The word "lie" seems to have been banished from MSMspeak. People now "mispseak" or they "mislead". But, heavens, we don't lie; we're Americans.
Orwellian newspeak, eh?
TORTURE IS A WAR CRIME. ANYONE AUTHORIZING IT, DOING IT OR REFUSING TO PROSECUTE IT IS A WAR CRIMINAL.
Seriously, how bad is the CIA at their tradecraft? They destroy the torture videos but can't eliminate a memo and some still photos?
This is what we get for our $50+ billion per year? Betamax, sky robots wasting civilians and the inability to keep secrets?
I want a f@#king refund.
-This is what we get for our $50+ billion per year? Betamax, sky robots wasting civilians and the inability to keep secrets?
Ha! It's hard to get good help these days.
Good help won't work for the CIA at any price.
That's why they don't get good help.
For another unbelievable turn of the screw:
On page A19 of today's NYT, the right wing conservative think tank, Accuracy in Media, paid for and published a full page ad puporting to be sponsored by 'Torture Truth Project', a project of AIM.
T O R T U R E
Throughout The Entire World
The Word 'Torture' Means Intense,
Lasting, Brutal Physical Agony
Why Is The U.S. News Media Eagerly
Spreading An Incalculably Harmful Lie
That Can Only Motivate Terrorists To
Further Attacks On America?
A Grassroots Plea To
The U.S. News Media
Stop Misleading The World
That Our Country Condones Torture
*You now know as a result of the recent release of what you
choose to call "The Torture Memos" that these are the 14
interrogation techniques permitted by the United States:
*Sleep deprivation...Dietary manipulation... Abdominal
slaps.. Facial slaps... Attention grasps...Facial holds...
Forced nudity..Water dousing..Stress positions not designed
to produce pain.. Cramped confinement in a dark space...
Confinement with insects such as a caterpillar... Pushing
against a wall..Wall standing...Pouring water on a person's
face to induce the feeling of drowning(waterboarding)
*As you know, waterboarding has not been used for 5 years and
was used on only 3 detainees. Our own troops are subject to
waterboarding as part of their training.
*By your continual use of the word 'Torture' to describe these
interrogation techniques you have been misleading the world
that the United States condones techniques of barbarous
cruelty. The consequences could be horrendous.
IT'S TIME FOR THE TRUTH
We are losing the goodwill of people across the world and you
are aiding al Qaida in recruiting terrorists for future
attacks on America.
Torture Truth Project
A project of Accuracy in Media, Inc.
4455 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20008/(202)364-4401
(reproduced from below)
The desire for revenge runs deep. I understand your motivations, Cheney and his Repug crowd stripped away our delusions that the USA even tries to be a force for human rights and dignity in the world. I too feel pain and anger at this.
But I would never torture him for those reasons.
On the other hand, I would torture him to extract some sort of obviously false confessions. Not out of a sense of revenge, but because I honestly believe that this man has no conscience. I think The only way he could see that torture produces wholly unreliable information, that all it does do is confirm the prejudices of the torturer, is for him to be humiliated and denigrated himself to the point where he admits to crimes and perversions that everyone knows are false.
Nothing short of the personal experience, I believe, would demonstrate to him the error of his assumptions. He will, even if put on trial and found guilty and even if he does jail time, go to his grave absolutely certain of the connection between Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden because he got that "information" from torture...which he just "knows" works.