Sully: On Sex And Torture
Kevin Drum notes a political double standard. And when the Republicans impeached a president for committing perjury in a civil suit, it was about the rule of law. But when it comes to holding a president accountable for war crimes in his public capacity, it is about criminalizing political differences. Do these people even hear themselves?Sully: Quote For The Day
Josh Marshall: Speaks for ItselfA great editorial [from May 17, 2004]:
They have endangered any American unlucky enough to find himself at the mercy of our enemies in the war on terror. They have impeded our progress in that war. More fundamentally, they traduced their mission, betrayed their fellow soldiers, and disgraced their country. Anyone up or down the chain of command who was criminally complicit should be prosecuted, too.[…]
There’s only one way to drain this poison, and it isn’t further breast-beating, from the administration or its foes. Bring on the trials, and the punishment.
Will the Weekly Standard keep its word?
From Greg Mitchell ...
With each new revelation on U.S. torture in Iraq, Afghanistan and Gitmo (and who, knows, probably elsewhere), I am reminded of the chilling story of Alyssa Peterson, who I have written about numerous times in the past three years but now with especially sad relevance. Appalled when ordered to take part in interrogations that, no doubt, involved what we would call torture, she refused, then killed herself a few days later, in September 2003.See the rest here.
"I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture..." - Official proclamation by President Bush, June 26, 2003.
Maddow connects all the dots and burns strawmen. This is simply terrific, and really quite stunning.
High crimes? April 22: Shedding new light on the birth of torture techniques in America, Rachel Maddow is joined by Ron Suskind, author of "The One Percent Doctrine," as they follow the trail of a carefully constructed interrogation program right to the top.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Tortured logic April 22: The Bush administration developed an interrogation program from techniques that were done to American prisoners-of-war to get false confessions out of them. What could possibly go wrong? Rachel is joined by Colonel Steven Kleinman, former military interrogator.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Yglesias: Zubaydah Interrogator: Torture Was Unnecessary and IneffectiveGreg Sargent: Flashback: Bush’s FBI Director Said Torture Didn’t Foil Any Terror PlotsPeople continue to treat the claim that institutionalized torture is not an effective investigative method as some kind of fringe position adopted out of convenience by squishes who don’t want to face up to the hard tradeoffs in the world. But the fact remains that this is what you hear from everyone who does investigations professionals. And it’s also the case that you never see examples of highly effective investigative agencies being reliant on torture. The Dzerzhinksy-era NKVD put on a lot of great show trials, but the Bratton-era NYPD didn’t bring about an impressive drop in crime rates through “enhanced interrogation methods.”
Meanwhile, here’s Ali Soufan, an FBI supervisory special agent who oversaw elements of the Zubaydah interrogations, speaking out:
For seven years I have remained silent about the false claims magnifying the effectiveness of the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding. I have spoken only in closed government hearings, as these matters were classified. But the release last week of four Justice Department memos on interrogations allows me to shed light on the story, and on some of the lessons to be learned. [...]
It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence. [...]
There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.
Soufan hints at this briefly, but another problem with institutionalized torture is that it wrecks your entire system of laws. If you do a normal investigation and get someone to cough up the name of a confederate, then you can arrest the confederate. And then you can interrogate him through normal methods. But if you torture someone to get him to cough up the name of a confederate, then what do you do? Well, you’ll have to kidnap him and send him to a “black site” or something. But then whatever info you get from him also has to go on the “secret” side of your operations. That means you can’t share it effectively with state and local law enforcement, or with the Border Patrol or with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Either that, or else in the name of effective counterterrorism you need to completely rebuild the entire system of law enforcement and criminal justice along Stalinist lines. The FBI, which in additional to having national security responsibilities has always been in a position where it needs to cooperate with the “ordinary” police and prosecutors, is attuned to these kind of problems which, I think, is one reason why it was more institutionally resistance than the CIA to getting into the torture business. But in the long haul, to fight terrorism it’s extremely important to have effective methods of information-sharing and cooperation both vertically and horizontally across a very large country with a great diversity of law enforcement agencies. To take the most “high value” sources of information and unplug them from the rest of the system is a disaster.
Now that Bush administration officials have launched a major campaign to persuade us that torture “worked,” perhaps it’s worth recalling that George W. Bush’s own FBI director said in an interview last year that he wasn’t aware of a single planned terror attack on America that had been foiled by information obtained through torture.
Robert Mueller, who was appointed by Bush in 2001 and remains FBI director under Obama, delivered that assessment at the end of this December 2008 article in Vanity Fair on torture:
I ask Mueller: So far as he is aware, have any attacks on America been disrupted thanks to intelligence obtained through what the administration still calls “enhanced techniques”?
“I’m really reluctant to answer that,” Mueller says. He pauses, looks at an aide, and then says quietly, declining to elaborate: “I don’t believe that has been the case.”
That stands in direct contrast to Dick Cheney’s recent claim that torture has been “enormously valuable” in terms of “preventing another mass-casualty attack against the United States.”
You’d think that this sort of thing would throw a bit of a wrench into the Bushies’ campaign. But as Charles Kaiser notes, these types of statements haven’t really broken through the media din.
On that score, it’s worth asking why the White House and its allies aren’t pushing back a bit harder on the Bushies’ claims. Yes, this is a debate that the White House would like to avoid. But Cheney and other Bush administration officials have launched a major campaign here that shows no signs whatsoever of abating.
Whatever downsides Cheney’s constant public appearances hold for the GOP, the Bushies seem to be having some success shifting the debate onto the narrow question of whether torture “worked.” Shouldn’t we be seeing more push-back from the White House or its outside allies?
Anonymous Liberal: No One Could Have Predicted...
...that if you adopt a torture regimen originally designed to extract false confessions from American soldiers, you might end up getting false information that confirms all your erroneous preconceptions and leads you to commit a catastrophic foreign policy blunder.
The years immediately following 9/11 really were a perfect storm of incompetence, ignorance, and moral degeneracy in the White House. History will not be kind to George Bush and Dick Cheney. How is it possible that a torture regime this detailed and systematic could have been implemented without anyone understanding the history of the techniques being employed? How is it that no one chimed in and said 'hold on a damn minute' when this was being discussed? (Yes, I'm looking at you, Nancy Pelosi). How is it that no one recognized that these techniques were likely to lead to misinformation that confirmed what the interrogators already believed? Or did they just not care?
This entire debate has progressed in an almost surreal way. For a long time, the Bush administration and its right wing apologists were in pure denial mode, claiming that the U.S. did not torture and conceding that torture was a bad thing ("what's a Code Red?"). After Abu Ghraib, the official line was that torture is against the law and these acts were the work of a few bad apples disobeying clear orders from above ("the men were specifically told that Private Santiago was not to be touched"). Eventually as the extent of the torture began to be reported, the Administration's apologists began to defend the concept of torturing terrorists in the abstract, while still not admitting to any specific conduct ("Private Santiago is dead and that is a tragedy, but he is dead because he had no code. He is dead because he had no honor, and God was watching.") With the release of the torture memos, however, we've now reached a whole new stage. Dick Cheney and his defenders are now in full on Jack Nicholson meltdown mode ("You have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. . . .you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall!"). I just hope we eventually get to the frog march stage ("You fuckin' people, you have no idea how to defend a nation. All you did was weaken a country today.")
Okay, that's enough A Few Good Men for the day. Honestly, though, when I see Cheney defending this transparently illegal torture regime, the image of Nicholson's reddening face and increasingly angry meltdown instantly comes to mind. Cheney, like the fictional Colonel Jessep, has clearly managed to convince himself that everything he did in office was necessary and saved lives and that he's now being second guessed by a bunch of ivy-league pantywaists who have no idea what it takes to defend a nation. He's defiant and enraged that anyone would have the temerity to question what he did or to (gasp) point out that it violates a number of very clear laws ("I'm being charged with a crime?! This is funny.")
Unfortunately, because this isn't a movie, it's unlikely that the culprits will ever truly be held accountable for their actions.
Anonymous Liberal: We put cellophane or cloth over their mouths; we're not animals
Over at the The Corner, Mark Hemingway takes issue with Paul Begala's assertion that we've prosecuted Japanese soldiers for doing the very same thing (waterboarding) that the Bush Administration did 183 times to a single detainee:
Asano practiced a much more severe form of waterboarding, according to the Post:
Twenty-one years earlier, in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.
In waterboarding as it is practiced by the U.S., cellophane or cloth is placed over the subject's mouth to keep water out of nose and mouth. Asano was pouring water directly into the mouths and noses of subjects which is considerably more harsh and dangerous.
Yeah, U.S. style waterboarding is way more civilized. We use cellophane or cloth, so it's completely unfair to compare the two techniques. If Asano had just used cellophane, like a civilized person, those charges definitely would have been dropped.
Good lord. What the hell has happened to American conservatism? Yesterday one of Bush's top speech writers wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post rationalizing torture of Muslim terrorist suspects as a way of helping them reach spiritual liberation. On the same day, the editor-in-chief of the National Review, the nation's top conservative magazine, published an editorial about the torture memos claiming that: "Rightly considered, the memos should be a source of pride."
That's what the Republican party has allowed itself to become, a party of torture apologists. This is the kind of "analysis" that used to spill forth from the politburos of our communist enemies. It's really rather shocking to me that there aren't more conservatives out there who are embarrassed by this, that movement conservatives are so invested in protecting the reputation of the Bush administration that they're willing sign their names to this kind of morally bankrupt rationalization. It's beyond sad.
Jane Hamsher: FBI Weren’t the Only Ones Objecting to Torture — So Did the Army, Marines & Air Force
As Digby notes, there were already serious objections to the use of torture in 2002 -- the FBI chief Muller had already refused to let his agents participate in the CIA's "coercive interrogations" in June of 2002 (per Marcy's timeline, the Bybee memo didn't make them legal until August 1).
But it's not like the FBI was the only one who had a problem. On October 1, Major General Michael Dunlavey sent a memo to General James Hill, Commander of US Southern Command, requesting the authority to use "aggressive interrogations techniques" like those use in SERE training. The memo reached Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Joint Staff solicited views of the military services. Here's what came back in November 2002 (PDF):
Air Force: "serious concerns regarding the legality of many of the proposed techniques...Some of these techniques could be construed as 'torture' as that crime is defined by 18 U.S.C 2340." Further, they were concerned that "implementation of these techniques could preclude the ability to prosecute the individuals interrogated," because "Level III techniques will almost certainly result in any statements obtained being declared as coerced and involuntary, and therefore inadmissible....Additionally, the techniques described may be subject to challenge as failing to meet the requirements outlined in military order to treat detainees humanely and to provide them with adequate food, water, shelter and medical treatment." They called for an in-depth legal review.
Criminal Investigative Task Force (CITM): Chief Legal Advisor to the CITF at Gitmo, Maj Sam W. McCahon, writes "Both the utility and the legality of applying certain techniques identified in the memorandum listed above are, in my opinion, questionable. Any policy decision to use the Tier III techniques, or any techniques inconsistent with the analysis herein, will be contrary to my recommendation. The aggressive techniques should not occur at GTMO where both CITF and the intelligence community are conducting interviews and interrogations." He calls for further review and concludes by saying "I cannot advocate any action, interrogation or otherwise, that is predicated upon the principal that all is well if the ends justify the means and others are not aware of how we conduct our business."
Army: The Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans writes: "As set forth in the enclosed memoranda, the Army interposes significant legal, policy and practical concerns regarding most of the Category II and all of the Category III techniques proposed." They recommend "a comprehensive legal review of this proposal in its entirety by the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice."
Navy: recommends that "more detailed interagency legal and political review be conducted on proposed techniques."
Marine Corp: expressed strong reservations, since "several of the Category II and III techniques arguably violate federal law, and would expose our service members to possible prosecution." Called for further review.
Legal adviser to the Joint Chiefs, Jane Dalton, commenced the review that was requested by the military services. But before it was concluded, Myers put a stop to it -- at the request of Steven Haynes, the Department of Defense General Counsel, who was told by Rumsfeld that things were "taking too long." Over the objections of the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force and the Criminal Investigation Task Force, Haynes recommended that the "aggressive technique" be approved without further investigation. He testified that Wolfowitz, Feith and Myers concurred. On December 2, 2002 Rumsfeld approved Haynes' recommendation with the famous comment "I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?"
One of the conclusions of the Senate Armed Services Committee report is that Myers screwed up:
Conclusion 11: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers's decision to cut short the legal and policy review of the October 11,2002 GTMO request initiated by his Legal Counsel, then-Captain Jane Dalton, undermined the military's review process. Subsequent conclusions reached by Chairman Myers and Captain Dalton regarding the legality of interrogation techniques in the request followed a grossly deficient review and were at odds with conclusions previously reached by the Anny, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Criminal Investigative Task Force.
They also conclude that "Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse there. Secretary Rumsfeld's December 2,2002 approval of Mr. Haynes's recommendation that most of the techniques contained in GTMO's October 11, 2002 request be authorized, influenced and contributed to the use of abusive techniques, including military working dogs, forced nudity, and stress positions, in Afghanistan and Iraq."
Objections to torture aren't the exclusive terrain, as Bill Kristol likes to pretend, of "President Obama" and his "leftist lawyers" looking back on a "bright, sunny safe day in April" with "preening self-righteousness" and forgetting how "dark and painful" that chapter in our history was.
When Donald Rumsfeld approved "enhanced interrogation techniques" for Guantanamo Bay in 2002, he did so in defiance of the recommendations of the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force and the Criminal Investigation Task Force.
The West has been attacked many times before by barbarians. As someone who grew up in Southern England between London and the Channel, this was perhaps more obvious to me than to some Americans. In the countryside around my home, there were still occasional concrete constructions designed to impede Nazi tanks left rotting in the woods. My high-school playground retained its air-raid shelters (we stored our dirty books there). My great aunt was blind in one eye from a bomb blast in the blitz; my grandfather lived with a brain injury when he was a prison guard in the war and was attacked by a prison inmate during an air-raid; my mother was knocked over by the impact of a rocket at the end of the war; my parents and aunts and uncles were evacuated. Most ordinary people lived through the Blitz, a random 9/11 a week, from an army poised to invade, and turn England's democratic heritage into a footnote in a Nazi empire.
As all that was happening, and as intelligence was vital, the British captured over 500 enemy spies operating in Britain and elsewhere. Most went through Camp 020, a Victorian pile crammed with interrogators. As Britain's very survival hung in the balance, as women and children were being killed on a daily basis and London turned into rubble, Churchill nonetheless knew that embracing torture was the equivalent of surrender to the barbarism he was fighting. The chief interrogator at Camp 020 was someone out of the movies:
Colonel Robin “Tin Eye” Stephens was the commander of the wartime spy prison and interrogation centre codenamed Camp 020, an ugly Victorian mansion surrounded by barbed wire on the edge of Ham Common. In the course of the war, some 500 enemy spies from 44 countries passed through Camp 020; most were interrogated, at some point, by Stephens; all but a tiny handful crumbled.
Stephens was a bristling, xenophobic martinet; in appearance, with his glinting monocle and cigarette holder, he looked exactly like the caricature Gestapo interrogator who has “vays of making you talk”.
Stephens had ways of making anyone talk. In a top secret report, recently declassified by MI5 and now in the Public Records Office, he listed the tactics needed to break down a suspect: “A breaker is born and not made . . . pressure is attained by personality, tone, and rapidity of questions, a driving attack in the nature of a blast which will scare a man out of his wits.”
The terrifying commandant of Camp 020 refined psychological intimidation to an art form.
Suspects often left the interrogation cells legless with fear after an all-night grilling. An inspired amateur psychologist, Stephens used every trick, lie and bullying tactic to get what he needed; he deployed threats, drugs, drink and deceit. But he never once resorted to violence. “Figuratively,” he said, “a spy in war should be at the point of a bayonet.” But only ever figuratively. As one colleague wrote: “The Commandant obtained results without recourse to assault and battery. It was the very basis of Camp 020 procedure that nobody raised a hand against a prisoner.”
Stephens did not eschew torture out of mercy. This was no squishy liberal: the eye was made of tin, and the rest of him out of tungsten. (Indeed, he was disappointed that only 16 spies were executed during the war.) His motives were strictly practical. “Never strike a man. It is unintelligent, for the spy will give an answer to please, an answer to escape punishment. And having given a false answer, all else depends upon the false premise.”...
Torture is the weapon of cowards and bullies and monsters. Cheney is all three. Prosecute him.
No comments:
Post a Comment