Re: Bush 'clearly lied' about torture of prisoners.
- From: "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 09:10:13 -1000
Panetta called waterboarding, the interrogation technique previously used by the CIA that simulates drowning, torture. But he said the CIA operatives who carried it out during the Bush administration should not be prosecuted.
He said he would look to the White House for more leeway if he ever felt executive orders signed by Obama limiting interrogation techniques didn't allow enough leeway in the face of an imminent threat.
"If I had a ticking bomb situation and obviously whatever was being used I felt was not sufficient, I would not hesitate to go to the president of the United States and request whatever additional authority I would need," Panetta told the senators.
And under the Obama administration they will not use the word "torture" for what they WILL DO, but eh word "rendition".
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-rendition1-2009feb01,0,4661244.story
It is now called "rendition" now.
"GLOBALIST" <free.tuneup@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:37f4baf9-f678-4fe4-a732-15408f18848b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
First Published 2009-03-19, Last Updated 2009-03-19 16:15:54
Bush Lied About Torture of Prisoners
Anyone who looks at the report can have no doubt, first of all, that
the United States tortured prisoners and, secondly, that this activity
was illegal and constituted a breach of international and domestic
law, notes Mark Danner.
[Below is a transcript of an interview with Mark Danner by Amy Goodman
on Democracy Now!]
AMY GOODMAN: The International Committee of the Red Cross concluding
in a secret report, yes, it was two years ago that the Bush
administration’s treatment of prisoners “constituted torture” in
violation of the Geneva Conventions—the findings based on interviews
with prisoners once held in the CIA’s secret black sites.
But the revelation was just made this weekend when the author and
journalist Mark Danner published extensive excerpts of the Red Cross
report in the New York Review of Books. In the article, Danner quotes
from a speech President Bush delivered from the White House on
September 6th, 2006. Danner writes, the speech is “perhaps the only
historic speech [Bush] ever gave.” In it, Bush admitted the US was
using what he called “an alternative set of procedures” to interrogate
terrorism suspects.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: The CIA used an alternative set of
procedures. These procedures were designed to be safe, to comply with
our laws, our Constitution and our treaty obligations. The Department
of Justice reviewed the authorized methods extensively and determined
them to be lawful. I cannot describe the specific methods used. I
think you understand why. If I did, it would help the terrorists learn
how to resist questioning and to keep information from us that we need
to prevent new attacks on our country. But I can say the procedures
were tough, and they were safe and lawful and necessary. I want to be
absolutely clear with our people and the world: the United States does
not torture. It’s against our laws, and it’s against our values. I
have not authorized it, and I will not authorize it.
AMY GOODMAN: President Bush in 2006.
MARK DANNER: This was a very significant speech, not least because the
President of the United States, for the first time in the history of
the country, was discussing interrogation techniques with the American
people and techniques which the International Committee of the Red
Cross report shows and says were torture.
The report—you know, in the New York Review article, I make this
speech from the President a kind of counterpoint to the information
contained in the International Committee of the Red Cross report,
because at the same—on the same day that the President was talking
about these procedures, he was also announcing that the fourteen high-
value detainees, “the worst of the worst,” as Donald Rumsfeld called
them, were being transferred from this secret world of the black sites
to Guantanamo. And at Guantanamo, they would, in the days after the
President’s speech, talk to representatives of the International
Committee of the Red Cross, whose job it is, among other things, to
supervise the treatment of the detainees, of prisoners of war. That is
the legally constituted responsibility of the ICRC.
So these representatives from Geneva came and interviewed—from the
Geneva organization of the ICRC, came and interviewed the detainees,
interviewed them separately in long interviews by professionals, and
in this report told their stories. There are long quotations, long
verbatim transcripts of the descriptions of these detainees of their
treatment in American custody at these secret prisons.
And these reports have a rare authenticity and credibility for a
number of reasons. The first is that they were taken by professionals
over many days, people who are used to conducting these kinds of
interviews with prisoners. Secondly, all of the detainees had been
kept isolated. They had not been able to talk to one another since
their captures, so they were not able to compare stories and make sure
that they matched, create stories and so on, which makes fabrication
extremely unlikely, if not impossible, as the ICRC says in their
report. And finally, the report exists, not because it was supposed to
be made public, but because it was transferred or sent to the American
government, notably to the acting general counsel of the CIA. It was
sent to this gentleman, Mr. John Rizzo, in February 2007. So it was
not intended for public distribution. It was intended as a way for the
ICRC to essentially tell the body in whose custody these detainees
were, the Central Intelligence Agency, about their treatment and to
strongly urge changing that treatment. So the ICRC’s judgment in this
report, it seems to me, are compelling and authentic.
And the writers of the report say, with no equivocation, that the
activities that they described “constitute torture”—that’s a quote,
“constitute torture”—and also constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment. There’s no equivocation. There’s no “it’s in the eye of the
beholder.” There’s no “it depends on the definition.” None of that.
They simply say it bluntly. And the people saying it are the people
who are the legally constituted guardians, in effect, of the Geneva
Conventions, which forbid torture of prisoners and forbid cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment, as does, I should say, the Convention
Against Torture of 1984, which the United States—to which the United
States is a signatory, as does the War Crimes Act of 1996. All of
these things make that activity illegal.
So, I think anyone who looks at the report or reads the extracts in
the New York Review of Books article can have no doubt, first of all,
that the United States tortured prisoners and, secondly, that this
activity was illegal and constituted a breach of international and
domestic law.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Mark Danner, did President Bush lie?
MARK DANNER: Yes. Yeah, he did.
You know, I should say, Amy, presidents lie. There are a number of,
you know, fairly compelling historical examples of it. One is
President Eisenhower with Gary Francis—Francis Gary Powers, the U-2
pilot who was shot down over the Soviet Union. President Eisenhower
came out and bluntly said, “No, no, no, this didn’t happen,” or “This
isn’t our pilot,” or “We didn’t do it.” And he was exposed. He was
lying. He was doing it for what he thought were genuine national
security reasons. President Nixon lied on a number of very well-
documented occasions.
And I think, on the repeated occasions that President George W. Bush
said, “We do not torture. I have not ordered it. I will not order it,”
yes, I think he was lying. I think he, from what we can tell, did it
for reasons that he thought were important to the country. I think he
ordered these things for reasons that he thought were important to the
country. I don’t think this was out of sadism or evil or anything
else. I think that the President believed he was acting in the best
interests of the citizens of the United States. But I do think that
it’s simply unequivocal that he said things that were not true, and he
knowingly said that they weren’t true.
You know, I suppose one could argue that he really believed what he
said. You know, but at a certain point, as children find out at a very
young age, courtesy of their parents, simply believing something
doesn’t make it true. You know, these things happen in objective
reality. They happen as a result of orders high up in the
administration. These activities were monitored very closely as they
happened, not only by CIA officials in Langley, Virginia, who were in
close contact with the interrogators from the beginning and hourly,
but by officials across the river in the White House. There’s a clear
record of briefings by the then-CIA Director George Tenet of the
Principals Committee in the White House. The Principals Committee
includes the Vice President, then Dick Cheney; the then-Secretary of
State Colin Powell; then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; then-
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice; the then-Attorney General
of the United States, the highest law enforcement officer of the
United States, John Ashcroft. All of these people, as a matter of
record, were being briefed on these particular techniques that were
being used on detainees and that are set out, very graphically, I
might add, in the report and quoted in the New York Review of Books
article. So—
AMY GOODMAN: Would all of these people have seen this report?
MARK DANNER: You know, I couldn’t say about that. All I know is that
the report was transmitted directly to the acting general counsel of
the CIA. What its distribution was within the government was, I don’t
know.
But I would say that these officials, some of whom, of course, by the
time the report, the actual report, was transmitted, were no longer in
the Bush administration, such as Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld,
these people, as I just suggested, had a much more direct source of
information: they were being briefed in real time by the director of
the CIA, George Tenet, who, from all reports, was concerned about his
own exposure and the exposure of his agency to legal penalties for
this activity. And I think one can surmise that one reason why he kept
the principals so closely briefed was that he didn’t want to be caught
out and exposed for doing these things.
And you see this kind of indication of worry about legality up and
down the line. I mean, it’s a matter of record now that the CIA
destroyed no less than ninety-two video recordings of interrogations.
And, you know, it’s hard to believe that they did that for
intelligence reasons. It seems likely that they did it because they
feared that those recordings would be used in some way in a
prosecution or an investigation. So, you know, not the least way that
torture is problematical is that it causes a lot of problems within
the bureaucracy. It causes a lot of leaks from people who object to
the policy. They call up reporters. You get a lot of things in the
press. And it also causes officials to do things that are manifestly
against the interests of the government, like destroying videotapes
that one would think, if these things were valuable interrogation
sessions, had a lot of intelligence that probably shouldn’t have been
destroyed. But they were destroyed for reasons extraneous to
intelligence, that had to do with the fear of high officials that they
would be exposed and prosecuted. So there are a lot of different ways
that these activities are problematical, and not the least that
they’re illegal, arguably immoral, politically damaging, but also
practical—there are practical problems, such as the ones I just—the
ones I just cited.
AMY GOODMAN: The power of your piece, Mark Danner, in the New York
Review of Books is the men’s words themselves, the descriptions of the
torture. Can you talk about who Abu Zubaydah is and what exactly he
told the International Red Cross?
MARK DANNER: Well, Abu Zubaydah was captured on March 28th, 2002, in
Faisalabad, Pakistan. The joint task force of special forces from the
Pakistani army and from Pakistani intelligence, FBI agents, CIA
agents, raided a series of safe houses simultaneously, and at one of
them they found Abu Zubaydah, who actually ran up to the roof, tried
to jump from one roof to another to escape. He was shot three times,
very gravely wounded by AK-47 fire. The United States immediately took
him to—first to a local hospital, and then they transported him to
Lahore, a bigger hospital, Lahore, Pakistan. And George Tenet
telephoned Johns Hopkins, had a trauma surgeon put aboard a private
plane, sent immediately to Pakistan to try to save his life. They did
save his life. He was then transported to a safe house, apparently in
Thailand, where he was interrogated. And he’s really the first of
these prisoners to be subjected to the “alternative” set of
procedures, as the President called them. We have a long record of
what was done to him.
He is, I should say, by the way, to answer your question—who was he?—
he was, so far as we know, an official fairly high up in al-Qaeda. He
had to do especially with logistics, with transporting people,
ensuring that they were in particular camps, helping them with travel,
knowing where they were placed in cells. There is, like everything
having to do with al-Qaeda, a great deal of controversy about what his
actual role and what his actual importance was. The President
described him as a leading figure in al-Qaeda, extremely important.
Many other prominent journalists, notably Ron Suskind in his book The
One Percent Doctrine, dispute this and say that, in fact, he was a man
with mental problems who was not taken particularly seriously within
the organization.
And what ensued was a kind of struggle between the FBI and the CIA
about methods. The FBI wanted to use more conventional interrogation
techniques, and they did indeed use those for a couple of weeks and
apparently got significant information. At the same time, the CIA
wanted to believe that he was lying, that he was not giving up the
information he should have been, and they pressed to use enhanced
interrogations methods, what the President called the “alternative set
of procedures.”
And in the New York Review piece, I detailed what these enhanced
interrogation methods were, which began with sleep deprivation. He
woke up strapped naked in a white room, very small white room, bright
white light, music playing at a very high volume twenty-four hours a
day. He was given no food, just given a liquid supplement that he
could drink. He was strapped to a bed for the first several days, then
moved to a chair, where he was shackled in place for three weeks.
Music played, light continued, twenty-four hours a day. The room was
kept very cold. One official who observed this said he kept turning
blue, that the effect of the cold on this naked guy shackled in a
chair. And he was kept awake, apparently, for the better part of three
weeks and interrogated daily.
More intensive techniques were eventually used. These included use of
cold water, again keeping him very cold, then beating him, punching
him and slapping him. A towel was placed around his neck, and he was
slammed repeatedly against the wall.
Two boxes, black boxes, were then moved in front of his cell. One of
them was about three feet—excuse me, two feet by three feet by six
feet high, so it had a kind of coffin shape, tall black box. The
second was the same width and length, but about three feet, three-and-
a-half feet tall, so a small black box. He was forced into these
boxes, these tiny spaces, and kept in there. And when he came out the
first time, he discovered that a piece of plywood had been affixed to
the wall, apparently put there so he could be slammed against it
without risk of serious injury.
He was later strapped down on a hospital gurney, as he describes it.
The head was lowered, a cloth placed over his face, and water was
poured over his face. This is what the CIA—or, excuse me, the ICRC
report refers to in its chapter titled “Suffocation by Water.” The
water was poured over his face. He describes this in depth, what
happened. He seized up, gagging. This is waterboarding. And this was
done on apparently five occasions. After a certain amount of time, he
would be raised up on the gurney to a vertical position. He would then
vomit. The thing would be lowered again, the cloth replaced and the
water poured on again. This is described in the first person in the
ICRC report, and I quote extensively in the piece in the New York
Review of Books.
AMY GOODMAN: We continue with Mark Danner, professor of journalism at
UC Berkeley. I asked him about his colleague at Berkeley, law
professor John Yoo, now on leave at Chapman Law School in LA. Yoo is
famous for the torture memo written when he worked for the Bush
Justice Department, 2001 to 2003. This is Mark Danner’s response.
MARK DANNER: There was great concern in the—after the attacks of 9/11
that techniques, these dramatic techniques, or this leaning forward of
policy, would have a legal cover. That is, that officials, by
undertaking some of these things, whether it’s warrantless wiretapping
or enhanced interrogation, not be subject to prosecution. So it was a
large part of the job of certain parts of the Justice Department to
come up with legal opinions for the rest of the government that would
give the reasoning for why these things that people formerly thought
were illegal had suddenly become legal.
And John Yoo was a young lawyer, who had been a professor at Berkeley
and now is again, and who was serving in the Justice Department’s
Office of Legal Counsel, which is essentially kind of a small think
tank within the Justice Department whose job it is to give opinions to
the rest of the government, notably the White House, about how to
interpret certain laws and statutes. John Yoo was a leading figure in
coming up with new interpretations of the law, in order, in essence,
to make these activities, heretofore thought to be illegal, legal.
And the story of the spring of 2002, leading right up to the summer,
is conversations that were had among John Yoo, other Justice
Department officials, and especially lawyers in the White House,
including the White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, who later went on
to become Attorney General, of course; Timothy Flanagan; and, of
course, David Addington, who was then the counsel of Vice President
Dick Cheney—all got together and came up with a legal strategy that
John Yoo wrote in what has now become known as the torture memo. It
was signed by Jay Bybee, John Yoo’s boss at the time in the Justice
Department, who is now, I should say, a federal judge here in the
Ninth Circuit in California. And it was signed and dated August 1st,
2002. But by that time, Abu Zubaydah had been under interrogation in
Thailand, we think, for a couple of months in one of these black
sites. So these discussions had gone on, and it’s generally thought
that a so-called green light was given by the lawyers to use these
activities sometime in the early summer of 2002, probably after a
White House meeting.
But the gist of the memo is a redefinition of torture. Your viewers
will know that torture is illegal. It’s illegal according to American
law. It’s made illegal in the War Crimes Act of 1996. It’s illegal
according to the Convention Against Torture, to which the US is
signatory. It’s illegal according to the Geneva Conventions of 1947.
So it is—excuse me—many times illegal.
So, how do you do it as a government and say that it’s legal? And the
answer to that question, at least as supplied by John Yoo and other
Bush administration lawyers, was you redefine it. You say, “OK,
torture is illegal, but what we’re about to do isn’t torture. Why?
Because for something to be torture, it must cause pain so severe”—and
I’m quoting now—“as to be equivalent to major organ failure or death.”
That’s a quotation from this memorandum. And, of course, if that’s the
test for torture, you can do an awful lot to somebody. Arguably, you
can waterboard them and not—and argue that this is not equivalent to
major organ failure or death.
So this memo was put together in the spring and summer of 2002. It was
signed on August 1st, 2002. And it became the guiding opinion, until
it was eventually withdrawn in late—I believe late 2004 or early 2005.
AMY GOODMAN: Mark Danner, do you think your colleague, John Yoo,
should be tried for war crimes or crimes against humanity?
MARK DANNER: You know, Amy, that’s a very difficult question, and the
honest answer that I can give you is I don’t know the specific answer
to that specific question. What I do know is that there needs to be a
process in the United States whereby, first, these matters are fully
investigated by a credible body—I underline “credible”—in which there
can be a public record made of what was done, when it was done, what
techniques were used, who approved them, specifically, and—and I think
this is extremely important—what was gained by them, because there
have been extravagant assertions from President Bush on down that
these techniques resulted in intelligence that protected the United
States from imminent attacks. These assertions are much disputed. A
lot people say they’re exaggerations. But the real truth of the matter
is, we cannot say that for sure until we have a clear record.
But I would say that, you know, the Obama administration—there is
evidence on some days that the President, the current President, and
others, other high officials, would like these matters to go away. I
don’t blame them. It interferes with their program. They want to look
to the future, as President Obama says. But, you know, his Attorney
General, Eric Holder, said in his confirmation hearings, quite
bluntly, “Waterboarding is torture.” That’s a quote. We also know that
the former Vice President, Dick Cheney, the former CIA director, Mr.
Hayden, explicitly said that prisoners were waterboarded. Prisoners
under their control were waterboarded. We know about three of them. We
now have the Red Cross report describing that waterboarding. Well,
there’s a contradiction there that the country has to deal with. If
it’s illegal and it was done, what exactly are we going to do about
it?
AMY GOODMAN: Mark Danner, hours after you published excerpts of the
Red Cross report, former Vice President Dick Cheney appeared on CNN.
He was asked whether he believed President Obama was making Americans
less safe by abandoning some of the Bush administration’s, quote,
“counterterrorism techniques.”
DICK CHENEY: I think those programs were absolutely essential to the
success we enjoyed of being able to collect the intelligence that let
us defeat all further attempts to launch attacks against the United
States since 9/11. I think that’s a great success story. It was done
legally. It was done in accordance with our constitutional practices
and principles. President Obama campaigned against it all across the
country. And now he’s making some choices that, in my mind, will in
fact raise the risk to the American people of another attack.
AMY GOODMAN: Mark Danner, your response?
MARK DANNER: Well, first of all, one should say that the Vice
President has said this repeatedly. That wasn’t the first time he said
it. He said it repeatedly during the closing days of the
administration. He was quoted as saying it in politico.com shortly
after President Obama’s inauguration, and now he repeats it again.
It’s clear there—first of all, I think he believes this. And, you
know, Vice President Cheney, whatever else you can say about him,
seems to be rather forthright when he talks about these issues in
public. He sets it out very clearly, as clearly as Eric Holder’s
statement that waterboarding is torture. We have two absolutely
opposite views.
The second thing one can say is there’s a political aspect to this,
which I alluded to earlier, which again is very clear, that the former
Republican Vice President is laying down a kind of marker, saying,
“OK, you can get rid of these techniques, fine, but if there’s another
attack, we’re going to be in a position not only to claim that you are
responsible for it, having gotten rid of these techniques that
protected the country, that other attack will in effect prove that
what we did was necessary.” That is, there is an exculpatory element
in that argument, in saying, you know, what we had to do was
necessary; another attack will prove it’s necessary, because it will
come after you’ve eliminated these techniques. And I think it’s
important to underline that.
You know, as I describe in the New York Review piece, there was a
phrase that went around in the days after 9/11: “The gloves are coming
off. The gloves are coming off.” It originally came, I think, from
Cofer Black, who’s a CIA counterterrorism official, who said it before
a Senate committee. And it’s, to me, a fascinating phrase, and it’s so
simple that you almost miss its significance. The implication, of
course, is that the gloves were on, that in some way the
constitutional and legal protections that are part of the American
system constitute kind of gloves that make it impossible, the
implication is, for the United States to protect itself from the
threats it faces.
And there’s a long history to this. You know, Dick Cheney was chief of
staff under Gerald Ford. A very young man, he was a very high official
in the Nixon and Ford administrations, as was his colleague Donald
Rumsfeld, who was then his mentor during the early and mid-’70s. And
that was the time of Watergate. That was the time when the Nixon
administration was crumbling all around them. And one of the
consequences was—and this, of course, came from Vietnam as much as
anything, the defeat in Vietnam—was an investigation of the CIA that
was led by Senator Frank Church of Idaho, the Church Committee, also
the Pike Committee at the same time, which ferreted out and made
public a lot of CIA wrongdoing, including attempts at assassinations,
warrantless wiretapping domestically and abroad, and so on. These were
made public, and there were legal consequences. The Congress passed
various laws, including laws imposing on the President a requirement
that if he was going to launch covert operations there had to be a
finding, an explicit presidential decision, which made “deniability,”
quote/unquote, impossible, also FISA, the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, which was passed under Carter, but was a consequence
of this era.
Now, those laws and many others you could name, which came out of the
Church Committee and the Watergate era, were the very laws that Dick
Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and others in the administration in effect
circumvented after 9/11. So there’s a rather sophisticated and
historically rich narrative going on here that the Vice President—
former Vice President is setting out before the public. And I think
it’s important to examine that. His words are, I think, very
important, and they shape a kind of political worldview.
AMY GOODMAN: Mark, we only have a minute, and I wanted your
conclusions on torture.
MARK DANNER: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: One, is it effective in the way Vice President Cheney
talks about it? I mean, the fact that you get this testimony thrown
out, you can’t even use it, when there’s torture, let alone whether
you get accurate information. And what you think it means for a
democratic society?
MARK DANNER: Well, I think that there are a number of things you can
say about torture. The first thing is that it’s illegal, very illegal,
under international and domestic law. The second thing you can say is
that it’s politically damaging, enormously damaging, particularly in a
war, the so-called war on terror, which is a political war. It’s
essentially a worldwide counterinsurgency in which you are trying to
persuade young Muslims, first of all, not to support al-Qaeda, not to
join al-Qaeda, not to support a war, an insurgency, against the United
States. So it’s politically damaging and illegal. These things are a
matter of record. Third, it makes justice impossible. You end up with
a bunch of prisoners in Guantanamo who, because they’ve been tortured,
cannot be prosecuted. Print Printer Friendly Version
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
- References:
- Bush 'clearly lied' about torture of prisoners.
- From: GLOBALIST
- Bush 'clearly lied' about torture of prisoners.
- Prev by Date: Re: Senate approves two climate change experts
- Next by Date: Re: UN top envoy tells Obama to start dialogue with the TALIBAN.
- Previous by thread: Bush 'clearly lied' about torture of prisoners.
- Next by thread: In this morning's mail...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
