EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Waterboarding Is No Basis for Truth
George W Bush has resorted to the most obvious and, he apparently believes, convincing, defence of torture - namely, that it has saved lives. And what is better than claiming it has saved the lives of the citizens of your interlocutor? Waterboarding, the technique of simulated drowning regarded as torture in Britain and most other countries but as entirely legal by Bush's advisers, saved British lives by preventing attacks on Heathrow airport and Canary Wharf, so he argues.
Bush makes the claim, which is not new, in an interview with the Times, now serialising the memoirs of the former president. It is based on claims made by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks as he was being waterboarded 183 times after his capture in Pakistan in 2003.
No other evidence has been offered to back up the claims. Indeed, the CIA prevented British intelligence officers from questioning KSM, as he became known, not even telling the British where he was being held (part of the time in a secret prison in Poland).
In 2006, he described his torture to the International Committee of the Red Cross. Unsurprisingly, he said he told his interrogators what they wanted to hear to stop them torturing him.
Bush also mentions Abu Zubaydah, who after capture in Pakistan in 2002, was subjected to temperature extremes, music played at debilitating volumes and sexual humiliation. He was subjected to beatings, isolation, wall standing, continuous cramped confinement, sleep deprivation and waterboarding. Zubaydah was suspected of being a high-ranking al-Qaida leader. Bush administration officials claimed Zubaydah told them that al-Qaida had links with Saddam Hussein. He also claimed there was a plot to attack Washington with a "dirty bomb". Both claims are now recognised to be false, even by the CIA, which also admits he was never a member of al-Qaida.
Clive Stafford Smith, director of the legal charity Reprieve, points to a third individual whose torture was authorised by Bush's advisers. Under torture, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi claimed there was a link between Saddam Hussein, al-Qaida and WMD. "We also know that when Bush said this was a reason to go to war, he was making an enormous mistake, causing the endless bloodshed that followed," says Stafford Smith.
Bush cannot be allowed to get away with making these kind of claims about information based on torture, information that Britain's security and intelligence agencies treat with deep scepticism and - as far as the supposed links between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein's Iraq are concerned - incredulity.
- 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...
23 Comments so far
Show AllI would use the book for toilet paper.
I wouldn't if I were you, you'll probably get a rash.
Above all else, it really is important that George Bush actually admitted to the torture. This puts the Obama administration, and the Eric Holder "Justice Department" in a precarious situation. NOW, this administration will be pushed even more by people in the ACLU, Glenn Greenwald, Scott Horton, etc. And, there are countless suits being filed in other countries.
Last Friday, I attended an all-day conference at the Center on Law and Security at the NYU School of Law, here in NYC. The event was free -- I heard about the conference through Glenn Greenwald who posted the event on his blog on Salon. Anthony Romero was the opening keynote speaker. If you happen to live in NYC, the Center has an e-mail list, and you can receive updates as to events, etc. The Center also screens documentaries and those screenings are free to people who want to attend.
The overall theme of the conference was -- The Attack on the 1st Amendment, and how that attack is trickling down, more quickly as time passes, into our society. The arrests of the anti-war/peace activists in Minnesota, torture, religious freedom, etc., were all topics of concern and discussion, The Q&As were quite lively.
Thanks for the information Kay, it sounds very interesting. I might see you there.
M
The only "evidence" pertaining to "confessed" "mastermind" Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was extracted by torture.
Aside from that extracted "evidence" under torture, who among us can piece together the names, networks, and other evidence of the actors in the conspiracy who are responsible for 9/11?
The official story can't be believed, as it was told by the 9/11 Commission. John Farmer the Commission's chief legal counsel, along with the Chairmen Hamilton and Kean have told us that.
Thus, the events of 9/11 are still a mystery, as to who did what, and when.
Signed,
Kook, Nuttier than a Squirrel's Breakfast, Troofer, Toon (and whatever other label non-truthers wish to hurl)
Don't go to the dark side.
The sanctions alone were responsible for many Iraqi childrens deaths, they didn't allow chemicals into Iraq to kill cholera in the water and the sanctions were in place for a decade. Since when was bleach a weapon of mass destruction? When we sit and watch a war on TV and call it shock and awe.
It is not just offensive it is truly evil run amok.
"Waterboarding, the technique of simulated drowning"
Wrong; it is real drowning -if it is not curtailed the person will die of guess what-drowning.
he might like that too much...
Torture is only good for getting a person to say what you want them to say. That's why confessions produced by torture are inadmissable as evidence in a civilian court.
If barbarian Bush ever leaves the safety of the USA he should be arrested for war crimes.
Barbarian Bush should be arrested for war crimes WHEREVER he is. We can only hope that, should he travel abroad, some country has more moral spine than drugged and cowed Americans.
Bush said that his lawyers told him waterboarding was legal, so he authorised it, 'coz yuh gotta trust your advisers.
Not a moment's thought as to whether it was morally right, let alone effective.
Not a moment's thought as to whether the lawyer(s) might have an agenda of their own, or be telling him what he wanted to hear.
And this from a guy who bonded with his mother after she showed him the preserved foetus from her miscarriage.
With just a few minutes of torture-- or the threat of being tortured-- I think I would admit to being a Tea Party member or admirer of Sarah Palin. Not to make light of this, but why can't Americans admit that our leaders were/are guilty of war crimes? I don't understand this concept of "moving forward." What we've done is move backwards--by centuries--to believing it's ok to commit the same atrocities of the Inquisition.
"why can't Americans admit that our leaders were/are guilty of war crimes?"
Just because the law is crystal-clear. This US law (just the first paragraphs):
18 USC Sec. 2441
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 118 - WAR CRIMES
Sec. 2441. War crimes
(a) Offense. - Whoever, whether inside or outside the United
States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described
in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the
victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances. - The circumstances referred to in subsection
(a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of
such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States
or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act).
...
"Bush cannot be allowed to get away with making these kind of claims ..."
Sorry, but he has, and he will continue to "get away it" because he is privileged, rich and white. Is there any voice in the wilderness of DC calling for his head? Our government is rotten, and until "we the people" wake up and throw the whole bunch of them out, there will be no justice in this country.
Even if it could be demonstrated that torture had, on some occasion "saved lives", it still wouldn't justify it's use. That's why it is generally condemned. That's why police aren't supposed to torture people being questioned. Whether or not it might at times work, at some point we as a society decided that wasn't a road worth going down. Forty years ago you would have been hard pressed to find someone defending government sanctioned torture. Now, apparently, half the country is down with torturing suspects so long as someone somewhere thinks that it might have a positive outcome. WTF.
This man makes me sick.
Ok, Bush basically admitted he committed a crime with this torture business.
Now, didn't Obama take an oath to defend the Constitution?
Because he is violating that oath by not hauling Bush in to stand for this crime.
How can it be more clearly signaled that our democracy is "over" than when a person admits to a war crime and says he was proud of it. He obviously has written his book without fear that his book will become Exhibit A at his war crimes trial.
They are _so sure_ that the people nor the government nor the justice department nor the UN nor the international community will hold him accountable for his admission. And I agree, he tars us all.
A very sad day that makes very plain was only a subtext...
And as a practical concern, some of the bad seeds that enabled all this have moved on to greener pastures and will cause more damage.
John Bolton and John Yoo wrote the lead editorial in today's NY Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/opinion/10bolton.html
Opportunists always, now these these two would like to sabotage the START treaty. Cutting through their 'tortured' logic, it seems the main problem they have with START (which they purposely misspell as Start) is that it limits what our missile defense options. No surprise; the Uber-hawks have always had a lust for missile defense. They cite "the Obama administration’s lack of seriousness about national missile defense."
I can't believe these people made the lead editorial, and with no clue to remind the reader that Bolton was a radical sent by Bush to diminish the influence of the UN, and Yoo was used to provide the legal opinions enabling many of Bush's controversial / criminal actions.
Crying mandate, they are calling on the new republican majority in the house to scuttle the treaty.
So two things to watch for are:
1) Radicals of all stripes claiming that the midterm elections are a mandate for their pet project. The project is usually about destroying something.
2) Bad seeds from previous administrations popping back up fresh as daisies.