I Hate What You Just Said

Ali Soufan, an FBI agent who participated in anti-terrorism activities and interrogations, is testifying today before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee.  He claims that high-level intelligence was gained through legal techniques, not by the kinds of torture advocated by our former VP, the Dick of Darkness.  In particular, Soufan says the high-priority interrogation of Abu Zubaydah disproves the repugnant case that the Dick of Darkness is currently trying to make:

Soufan said that when he used [legal Army Field Manual interrogation methods] on Zubaydah, they produced actionable intelligence in less than an hour.

As for torture, said Soufan: “This amateurish technique is harmful to our long-term interests. It plays into the enemies playbook” [bold added].

It has become apparent that lawlessness and secrecy were the order of the day during the GWB administration.  But this story, via Glen Greenwald, does not reflect well on the Obama DOJ, either.  The story revolves around Binyam Mohamed, who was tortured and held in Guantanamo for six years, and America’s attempt to keep evidence from coming to light in Britain.  Greenwald:

In February, Obama’s DOJ demanded dismissal of Mohamed’s lawsuit against the company which helped “render” him to be tortured on the ground that national security would be harmed if the lawsuit continued.  Then, after a British High Court ruled that there was credible evidence that Mohamed was subjected to brutal torture and was entitled to obtain evidence in the possession of the British government which detailed the CIA’s treatment of Mohamed, and after a formal police inquiry began into allegations that British agents collaborated in his torture, the British government cited threats from the U.S. government that it would no longer engage in intelligence-sharing with Britain — i.e., it would no longer pass on information about terrorist threats aimed at British citizens — if the British court disclosed the facts of Mohamed’s torture. 

As a result of the American threats, the British High Court ruled that it would keep crucial evidence of Mohamed’s torture under wraps.  And, according to Greenwald, the new administration appears to be helping to cover up the crimes of the old one:

In the aftermath of that ruling, there was some dispute about whether the Obama administration had really issued this threat to Britain or whether it was merely a residual threat from the Bush administration.  But in the wake of a recent motion by Mohamed’s lawyer to the British court for re-consideration of its ruling, in response to which the British government submitted the written threats from the Obama administration, there can now be no doubt not only that Obama made these threats to Britain, but did so in a remarkably extreme and heavy-handed manner.

The rule of law is really, really in trouble.

Brian Kilmeade of Fox News says that John McCain  “should not be allowed to talk on torture”  because “he was tortured.”  This means, in Kilmeade’s logic, that his views are “skewed,” and Kilmeade rhetorically asks “whaddya think - he’s going to be pro-torture after he’s been through it?”

I suppose that by Kilmeade’s logic, unemployed workers should not talk about the economy, rape victims should not express an opinion about sexual assault, and for god’s sake Holocaust victims should stop giving us their damn thoughts on the Nazis! Their views are skewed!

The unbelievable audio is below.

Leon Panetta

The good news:

The CIA is decommissioning the secret overseas prisons where top al Qaida suspects were subjected to interrogation methods, including simulated drowning, that Attorney General Eric Holder, allied governments, the Red Cross and numerous other experts consider torture, the agency said Thursday.

In an e-mail to the agency’s work force outlining current interrogation and detention policies, CIA Director Leon Panetta also announced that agreements with the private security firms guarding the so-called black sites will be “promptly terminated,” and contractors no longer will be used to conduct interrogations.

The bad news:

Panetta, however, said that CIA officers who were involved in interrogations using “enhanced” methods authorized by the Justice Department during the Bush administration “should not be investigated, let alone punished” [bold added].

The message:  We’re going to curb our most abhorrent behaviors, but we’re going to give the Bush administration a pass on its illegal actions.

Translation of the message:  The law does not apply to the powerful.

The evidence is too overwhelming, and it is of far too serious a nature to ignore.  And if we don’t hold our elected officals accountable for their actions, we don’t have rule of law, and we have no international credibility.

From WaPo:

The International Committee of the Red Cross concluded in a secret report that the Bush administration’s treatment of al-Qaeda captives “constituted torture,” a finding that strongly implied that CIA interrogation methods violated international law, according to newly published excerpts from the long-concealed 2007 document.

The report, an account alleging physical and psychological brutality inside CIA “black site” prisons, also states that some U.S. practices amounted to “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” Such maltreatment of detainees is expressly prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.

…

Many of the details of alleged mistreatment at CIA prisons had been reported previously, but the ICRC report is the most authoritative account and the first to use the word “torture” in a legal context.

If you want to bring this up with your senators, click here for their contact information.

George W. Bush is all about “freedom,” and “democracy,” right?

Also - he’s all about this:

He’ll invade your country and destroy it under false pretenses.  He will show little if any concern whatsoever for the civilian dead and wounded in your country.  In fact, his forces will use cluster bombs - considered barbaric by much of the world - which will ensure heavier civilian casualties in your country.  He and his administration will authorize the use of torture in your country.  Then, when he comes to visit your country, and you throw your shoes at him in disgust, he’ll crack jokes while he listens to you being beaten nearby.  Audibly beaten.

From the NYT:

The Iraqi journalist, Muntader al-Zaidi, 28, a correspondent for Al Baghdadia, an independent Iraqi television station, stood up about 12 feet from Mr. Bush and shouted in Arabic: “This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog!” He then threw a shoe at Mr. Bush, who ducked and narrowly avoided it

As stunned security agents and guards, officials and journalists watched, Mr. Zaidi then threw his other shoe, shouting in Arabic, “This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq!” That shoe also narrowly missed Mr. Bush as Prime Minister Maliki stuck a hand in front of the president’s face to help shield him.

Mr. Maliki’s security agents jumped on the man, wrestled him to the floor and hustled him out of the room. They kicked him and beat him until “he was crying like a woman,” said Mohammed Taher, a reporter for Afaq, a television station owned by the Dawa Party, which is led by Mr. Maliki. Mr. Zaidi was then detained on unspecified charges.

Other Iraqi journalists in the front row apologized to Mr. Bush, who was uninjured and tried to brush off the incident by making a joke. “All I can report is it is a size 10,” he said, continuing to take questions and noting the apologies. He also called the incident a sign of democracy, saying, “That’s what people do in a free society, draw attention to themselves,” as the man’s screaming could be heard outside [bold added].

Compared to the brutality of the Iraq War itself, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and extraordinary rendition, this incident is of course relatively minor (unless you happen to be the guy being beaten - then it is quite major). 

But it is also a perfectly fitting way for George W. Bush to end his disgraceful presidency. 

WHILE A MAN WAS BEING BEATEN IN HIS PRESENCE, BUSH WAS CRACKING JOKES AND EXPLAINING DEMOCRACY TO EVERYONE.

George W. Bush knows no shame.

From today’s Boston Globe:

WASHINGTON - A bipartisan Senate report released yesterday says that former Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other top Bush administration officials are directly responsible for abuses of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and charges that decisions by those officials led to serious offenses against prisoners in Iraq and elsewhere.

The Senate Armed Services Committee report accuses Rumsfeld and his deputies of being the principal architects of the plan to use harsh interrogation techniques on captured fighters and terrorism suspects, rejecting the Bush administration’s contention that the policies originated lower down the command chain.

…

The report, released by Senators Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, and Republican John McCain of Arizona, and based on a nearly two-year investigation, said that both the policies and resulting controversies tarnished the reputation of the United States and undermined national security. “Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority,” it said [bold added].

The report further asserts that high-level officials not only initiated harsh interrogation techniques [read: torture], but that they “redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality.”  It still appears unclear whether any high-level Bush administration officials will be held accountable for their actions. 

A symptom of the problem:  I am looking at cnn.com and foxnews.com right now.  And I can’t find this story.

The AP reports that Obama insiders have stated that there will be no criminal investigations of Bush administration officials for human rights abuses or war crimes.

Instead, it seems that the president-elect favors something in line with a truth-and-reconciliation model:

Obama has committed to reviewing interrogations on al-Qaida and other terror suspects. After he takes office in January, Obama is expected to create a panel modeled after the 9/11 Commission to study interrogations, including those using waterboarding and other tactics that critics call torture. The panel’s findings would be used to ensure that future interrogations are undisputedly legal.

The article quotes Robert Litt, a former Clinton official in the Justice Department, offering the reasoning that is likely to win the day:

“Both for policy and political reasons, it would not be beneficial to spend a lot of time hauling people up before Congress or before grand juries and going over what went on,” Litt said at a Brookings Institution discussion about Obama’s legal policy. “To as great of an extent we can say, the last eight years are over, now we can move forward — that would be beneficial both to the country and the president, politically.”

Opposing this logic is Michael Rater, a professor at Columbia Law school, who argues that

“The only way to prevent this from happening again is to make sure that those who were responsible for the torture program pay the price for it,” Ratner said. “I don’t see how we regain our moral stature by allowing those who were intimately involved in the torture programs to simply walk off the stage and lead lives where they are not held accountable.”

It is a certainty that Litt’s argument will prevail. However, if I were Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Yoo, or Addington, I would not step foot outside of the United States for the rest of my lifetime.

What a great country we have. We’ve decided that it is acceptable that a single person has the ability to order the capture of individuals wherever they might be on the globe, hold them prisoner indefinitely with no access to a legitimate court, and subject them to torture. There is no other word for this than absolute and abject tyranny.

I was really hoping for a war-crimes trial so that I could see Dick Cheney deliver this line from the witness chair:

You can’t handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. . . . And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall! You need me on that wall! We use words like Honor, Code, Loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline! I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said “Thank you” and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled too!

This interview clip is heartening.  President-elect Obama has put himself on record - he will “close Guantanamo” and he will “make sure that we don’t torture.”

The contrast between Obama’s remarks and the moral decay of the Bush administration is striking, and it is just one of the many reasons that November 4 marked a new era of hope for America.

In January, we can all celebrate our new President’s inauguration. And then we must do our job - we must hold him to his words.

Paul Krugman with a statement on “The Monster Years.”

Man votes to authorize the torture of individuals in clear violation of international law, causing the humiliation, suffering, madness and even death of human beings in US custody.

Then man jokes in a prepared speech that a candidate running for president has ads so boring that they’d be considered torture under the Geneva Conventions.

People were hanged at Nuremberg for less.

Glenn Greenwald’s newest post is a must read.

In-between throat clearings, Fred Thompson spoke last night at the RNC. For several minutes of the speech, I thought Fred was reading from Foxe’s Book of Martyrs instead of the teleprompter. But I was wrong. The Mel Gibson-grade torture porn Fred was spouting was actually a recounting of John McCain’s experience as a POW in Vietnam.

The truly curious thing about this speech is that it doesn’t present McCain the strong, McCain the Top Gun pilot, McCain the patriotic hero; rather, it presents McCain the victim, McCain the martyr, McCain the lying in his own feces. I assume that this is all about getting the attention of the Christian right, for whom Thompson’s speech will read like a fifth gospel.

The Gospel of St. McCain begins on October 26, 1967, high above the dense jungle of North Vietnam. It was on that day that “a surface-to-air missile slammed into John’s A-4 Skyhawk jet, blowing it out of the sky.” During the escape from the plane, McCain broke “his right leg, his right knee, his left arm and right arm in three places.”

As Thompson relates, what greeted him on the ground was even worse:

An angry mob got to him when he fell to the ground. A rifle butt broke his shoulder. A bayonet pierced his ankle and his groin. They took him to the Hanoi Hilton, where he lapsed in and out of consciousness for days. He was offered medical care for his injuries if he would give up military information in return.

John McCain said, “No”.

I’m sorry, but there is something in the description of the bayoneting of McCain’s ankle and groin — and the refusal of succor — that sounds a bit too much like the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. The only difference is that while Jesus got a postmortem spear in the side, McCain got a bayonet in two places — and one of them was the crotch. Which is like one-upping the suffering of the Son of God. In short, Jesus was a pussy. And probably a community organizer.

Anyway, thank God McCain didn’t die. Just think of the theological confusion this would have created. Who would I worship then?

Thompson continued:

After days of neglect, covered in grime, lying in his own waste in a filthy room, a doctor attempted to set John’s right arm without success and without anesthesia. His other broken bones and injuries were not treated. John developed a high fever and dysentery. He weighed barely a hundred pounds. Expecting him to die, his captors placed him in a cell with two other POWs who also expected him to die.

At this point, there wasn’t a dry eye in the house. Nothing makes a Republican misty-eyed like the story of a man who can’t get adequate health care or one who experiences arbitrary imprisonment and senseless torture.

But Fred Thompson was just clearing his throat:

John McCain fought on. He persevered. So then they put him in solitary confinement for over two years — isolation, incredible heat beating on a tin roof, a light bulb in his cell burning 24 hours a day, boarded-up cell windows blocking any breath of fresh air, the oppressive heat causing boils the size of baseballs under his arms, the outside world limited to what he could see through a crack in the door.

For five-and-a-half years this went on. John McCain’s bones may have been broken, but his spirit never was.

We hear a lot of talk about hope these days. John McCain knows about hope. That’s all he had. [. . .]

He’d smile and give ‘em a thumbs-up.

The guards cracked ribs, broke teeth off at their gums. They cinched a rope around his arms and painfully drew back his shoulders. Over four days, every two to three hours, the beatings resumed. During one especially fierce beating, he fell, again breaking his arm.

John was beaten for communicating with other prisoners. He was beaten — beaten for NOT communicating with so-called peace delegations. He was beaten for not giving information during interrogation. [. . .]

Whenever John was returned to his cell — walking if he could, dragged if he couldn’t — as he passed his other fellow POWs, he would often call out to them.

Sleep deprivation, stress positions, beatings, isolation. What horrible, subhuman savages could do this to another human being?

Obama can form the word “hope” with his mouth. But it’s a mouth that hasn’t been repeatedly kicked by the boot of Charlie. And that makes all the difference. McCain has suffered more than Obama. Perhaps more than Jesus. Therefore, we can be sure that God favors him to lead our nation.

I can’t wait for Mel Gibson to buy the rights to this story.

Me likey.

The New York Times and Washington Post present the following set of stomach-churning facts gleaned from investigative journalist, Jane Mayer:

“Red Cross investigators concluded last year in a secret report that the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation methods for high-level Qaeda prisoners constituted torture and could make the Bush administration officials who approved them guilty of war crimes.”

“A CIA analyst warned the Bush administration in 2002 that up to a third of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay may have been imprisoned by mistake, but White House officials ignored the finding and insisted that all were ‘enemy combatants’ subject to indefinite incarceration.”

“[A] top aide to Vice President Cheney shrugged off the report and squashed proposals for a quick review of the detainees’ cases . . .’There will be no review,’ the book quotes Cheney staff director David Addington as saying. ‘The president has determined that they are ALL enemy combatants. We are not going to revisit it.’”

“[T]he [CIA] analyst estimated that a full third of the camp’s detainees were there by mistake. When told of those findings, the top military commander at Guantanamo at the time, Major Gen. Michael Dunlavey, not only agreed with the assessment but suggested that an even higher percentage of detentions — up to half — were in error. Later, an academic study by Seton Hall University Law School concluded that 55 percent of detainees had never engaged in hostile acts against the United States, and only 8 percent had any association with al-Qaeda.”

[T]he International Committee of the Red Cross declared in the report, given to the C.I.A. last year, that the methods used on Abu Zubaydah, the first major Qaeda figure the United States captured, were ‘categorically’ torture, which is illegal under both American and international law”.

“[T]he Red Cross document ‘warned that the abuse constituted war crimes, placing the highest officials in the U.S. government in jeopardy of being prosecuted.’”

Constitutional law professor, and former NSA lawyer, Jonathan Turley, throws in his two cents:

Some completely unbelievable news from today’s New York Times. The entire harsh interrogation torture regime used at Guantanamo Bay was plagiarized from Red Scare-era documents detailing Communist Chinese interrogation techniques:

The military trainers who came to Guantánamo Bay in December 2002 based an entire interrogation class on a chart showing the effects of “coercive management techniques” for possible use on prisoners, including “sleep deprivation,” “prolonged constraint,” and “exposure.”

What the trainers did not say, and may not have known, was that their chart had been copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners.

The recycled chart is the latest and most vivid evidence of the way Communist interrogation methods that the United States long described as torture became the basis for interrogations both by the military at the base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and by the Central Intelligence Agency. [. . .]

The 1957 article from which the chart was copied was entitled “Communist Attempts to Elicit False Confessions From Air Force Prisoners of War” and written by Alfred D. Biderman, a sociologist then working for the Air Force, who died in 2003. Mr. Biderman had interviewed American prisoners returning from North Korea, some of whom had been filmed by their Chinese interrogators confessing to germ warfare and other atrocities.

The article further explains that the “only change made in the chart presented at Guantánamo was to drop its original title: ‘Communist Coercive Methods for Eliciting Individual Compliance.’”

American Torture.™  Made in China.

As the article is quick to reveal, the position of the US at the time was that the described Chinese practices were torture. Further, it was also clear at the time that such practices do not produce actionable intelligence; rather, they elicit promiscuous confession. In the end, torture does nothing but create an endless, self-justifying loop of hysteria and paranoia.

Perhaps it is time for someone to tell this president “You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”

This just gives me the warm and fuzzies:

A new poll of citizens’ attitudes about torture in 19 nations finds Americans among the most accepting of the practice. Although a slight majority say torture should be universally prohibited, 44 percent think torture of terrorist suspects should be allowed, and more than one in 10 think torture should generally be allowed.

Thank you, Jack Bauer.