The Five Criminal Referrals WaPo Doesn’t Report
Can I just say how relieved I am that a TradMed outlet has finally reported the details about how the CIA’s torture program exceeded guidelines that I noted three weeks ago, from the recognition that the CIA was using much more water in its waterboarding than OLC authorized to the description of that action as "poignant"? It’s high time someone [else] started reporting the evidence that the torture program was not legal, even according to the Bybee Memo, as news.
The new news in this piece, though, is that the SSCI is reviewing a 2005 CIA IG [corrected] report on the torture tapes–a report that Jello Jay requested (to no avail) back when it was published.
To assess whether interrogators complied with the department’s guidance, Senate intelligence committee investigators are interviewing those involved, examining hundreds of CIA e-mails and reviewing a classified 2005 study by the agency’s lawyers of dozens of interrogation videotapes, according to government officials who said they were not authorized to be quoted by name.
[snip]
The videotape study, which the Senate intelligence committee demanded to see in 2005 but did not receive until last year, assessed the legality of interrogations that occurred between April and December 2002.
I’ve said before that Jello Jay’s requests for this report and other information from the 2004 CIA IG report likely contributed as much to the CIA’s decision to destroy the torture tapes as all the other reasons. It’s nice to see that it only took him three years to get the document.
But there’s a claim reported in this story that seems to conflict with known information. It quotes two Bushies saying that the CIA never made any criminal referrals out of the [I think] 2004 CIA IG report.
But two Bush administration officials privy to its conclusions said it did not provoke a specific CIA "referral" to the department suggesting an investigation of potential criminal liability, and no such investigation was undertaken at the time.
Though it is not entirely clear, the context seems to suggest that "its" refers to the 2004 CIA IG report. Perhaps the two Bushies mean the conclusions of that report did not provoke a "specific CIA ‘referral’" to DOJ, even if the CIA IG referred specific cases before he reached his conclusion.
But we know from the DOJ IG report that the CIA IG referred five cases to DOJ.
[Alice Fisher] said she recalled there was an investigation based on a CIA referral that may have related to detainee treatment or interrogation techniques, and that she became aware of some facts relating to CIA interrogations. She did not say when DOJ received the CIA referral, though she noted that it was sometime “later." [Later than the late 2002-early 2003 time frame of a debate about al-Qahtani.] Documents reflect a total of five referrals by the CIA OIG to DOJ. These referrals were made between February 6, 2003 and March 30, 2004.
Now, those two Bushies may have been parsing or may have been referring to the 2005 CIA IG report. But otherwise, they seem to be either unaware or lying about the criminal referrals arising out of the torture program.
As the evidence builds that the CIA knew their own torture program was illegal, we continue to have Bushies claiming all that evidence really doesn’t add up to a crime. But DOJ’s IG appears to disagree with these particularly Bushies’ claim that the CIA didn’t refer any of these crimes.
Update: Corrected to indicate that the 2005 report was not an IG report–according to Jello Jay, it was a CIA Office of General Counsel report.
Included in my letter was a request for the CIA to provide to the Senate Intelligence Committee the CIA’s Office of General Counsel report on the examination of the videotapes and whether they were in compliance with the August 2002 Department of Justice legal opinion concerning interrogation.
Thanks to drational for pointing out the error.
Clarification, please: this could be read as either:
A– “the videotape study (the study done ABOUT videotapes, but not including any actual viewing of them).”
Or as
B– ”the videotape study (in which videotapes are key source materials viewed in order to determine whether the events shown on the tapes conform to legal guidelines).”
Which is it, please? (Sorry to be daft, but I’d like to be 100% certain that my understanding on this key point is completely, fully accurate.)
In addition, that time period of 2002 was critical; the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) had been ramping up war frenzy since Sept 2002, and as bmaz masterfully pointed out on the previous thread, in October 2002 the BushCheney administration did everything that it could to link Saddam to AQ and 9-11. And ran into opposition from Tenet.
Then the 2003-2004 time period was when Bremer unilaterally dismissed the Iraqi military structure, leaving a whole lot of Iraqis in prime frame of mind to oppose the American invasion. During this period, the war started unraveling for the US; pipelines and infrastructure were repeatedly damaged by insurgents.
Also…
1. “Alice Fisher”, IIRC, worked under Chertoff at DoJ’s Criminal Division until he went off to head up Homeland Security. Am I correct?
2. Once Chertoff left DoJ, Alice Fisher moved up to head the DoJ Criminal Division. Again, am I correct?
3. Alice Fisher is also implicated in the use of DoJ resources to pursue (or invent) a legal case against Alabama Gov Don Siegelman, and she coordinated through Alabama Fed Prosecutor Leura Canary. (Siegelman was taken from the courtroom in handcuffs and basically sent on an odyssey through the federal prison system, ending up in a federal penitentiary in Louisiana without so much as a chance to appeal, strongly suggesting that Fisher’s oversight was more about ‘politics’ than about legal due process.) Am I correct for #3?
Sorry to trouble, but these points seem critical so need confirmation that I correctly understand.
Inre: your #2
Maybe this from the Boston Globe’s web site will help. It’s from September, 2005.
President Bush has used a constitutional provision to bypass the Senate and fill a top Justice Department slot with an official whose nomination stalled over tactics at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, naval facility.
Bush used a “recess appointment” Wednesday to name Alice S. Fisher to lead the agency’s criminal division. Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, had blocked the nomination because he wants to talk to an agent who named Fisher in an e-mail about allegedly abusive interrogations at the US military prison camp at Guantanamo.
Inre: your #1
Found this old bio for Alice but it covers here conection with Chertoff.
Alice Fisher
Assistant Attorney General (designate), Criminal Division
Fisher is an alum of the small team at Justice that worked through the night in the aftermath of 9/11. As deputy assistant attorney general of the Criminal Division at the time, her focus was investigating and prosecuting those involved with the attacks and other Al-Qaeda sympathizers. The criminal provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act were among her first post-9/11 projects. She was also in charge of tracking corporate fraud in cases such as the Enron investigation. Fisher left DOJ in 2003 to return to Latham & Watkins, a Washington-based law firm, where she was a partner. Since then, she’s been specializing in white-collar crime and advising clients on terrorism issues. Fisher knows the Criminal Division inside out. Described by a former colleague as the “right-hand appendage” of then-Criminal Division chief Michael Chertoff, she earned a reputation for her smarts and her tendency to reach out to other agencies. “She’s incredibly dedicated, has great judgment, and is a very hard worker,” says Chertoff, and, he adds, “she has a great sense of humor.” Fisher also worked with Chertoff at Latham & Watkins and on the Whitewater investigation, for which she was deputy special counsel to the Senate investigatory committee. Fisher, 38, grew up in Lexington, Ky., and went on to Vanderbilt University and later Catholic University School of Law.
Option B is correct as I understand it.
And Fisher was at Crim until 2002 or early 2003, then went into private practice, then came back to head Crim in August 2005. Yes, that is an interesting chronology, one I will be returning to.
Thanks for the clarification.
Also thanks to Fenestrate @13, 15.
My heavens, the plot thickens…
Hey, EW.
Thought you were taking the weekend off?
Thanks for “obsessing” over the gov’t documents so I don’t have to.
FunnyDiva
Said she does her best thinking or work when walking the dogs. Must have been out walking the dog or dogs.
4. gets my vote. Stinks to the high heavens, though, not just ‘cooking odors’.
present participle of the French poindre, “to prick” from Latin pungens “pricking”
It almost sounds as if Yoo was waxing romantically about the capability to take peoples lives to the edge of destruction, though. I think he meant definition 3…which is rather sadistic.
Thank you, Loo Hoo! This has been interesting.
I’ve been working with this definition (from the online Compact OED):
poignant . . . *adjective evoking a keen sense of sadness or regret.”
I searched around a bit and found that Emily DIckinson used a much wider array of definitions so now I’ve got lots of re-reading to do. http://edl.byu.edu/lexicon/p/40 Life is always a learning experience.
In terms of BushCo and torture, though, I’ll certainly second what watercarrier4diogenes said.
This is an excerpt from an interview Scott Horton did with Jane Mayer last July where she discussed this point:
We must go after them for murder. Let them try and justify the ultimate criminal act. Torture caused death. People were kidnapped and murdered.
Including perhaps the children of Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Where are they?
Stephen – you have just made my morning! Dick Cheney’s name on an indictment for murder!
I have a hard time seeing how the barnacle could be guilty of something the Presnit ordered. Remember, the barnacle has no power…period.
Besides Kappes, isn’t there another Bush holdover among Panetta’s top assistants, who is (finally) leaving his position, to be replaced by an Obama appointee?
DiFi’s excuse re: Kappes was that Panetta didn’t know enough about The Company to manage it properly, IIRC. Let’s see if Panetta still has cajones enough to do some house cleaning of his own, or if he’s just a stooge.
Bob in HI
hmm. I am not sure who that person is. Will check on that.
Ah. Found it. ID’d by none other than (drum roll) the notorious Emptywheel:
Breaking: Torture Architect John Rizzo Still Working at CIA
By: emptywheel Wednesday April 22, 2009 7:38 am
Bob in HI
Thanks!
I’d first read about Fisher at Horton’s “No Comment”; appreciate the sourcing and the refresher.
OT, but wow. The Pakistani government to take over the Madrassas.
… and he’s declared War against the Taliban. The Pakistani Army is in a pitched Battle against AQ & the Taliban within the borders of Pakistan.
The question is whether the opposition will support him, or use the opportunity to bring him down. Civilian casualties are reportedly in the thousands. The fact that they allowed the Taliban to take over much of the Northeast without supporting groups already opposed to the Taliban was a major error. Last week the Taliban actually had pulled within 50 miles of Jalalabad. Only then did the Zardari regime realize that they had allowed too much.
Zardari has become quite chirpy lately – T.O.I.
Here’s the thing, no matter which party you’re affiliated with, the Pak Army always has you in its grasp.
I’ve been thinking that a million $$ invested in Pakistan schools would do a lot more for our interests than a million $$ in more bombs and guns.
The unemployment rate is really high in these areas, or so I’ve read.
Our best FoPo for Afghanistan & Pakistan, IMHO, is money for schools, hospitals and jobs. We’d get a lot more for our money than we’re getting now.
Bob in HI
Without a doubt…the Afhans have been wartorn for decades; they have been forced into the “tribal” context we ridicule because there is only trauma and destruction. Family and clan are the only remnants of society and a traumatized people are easily misguided and “disappeared”. We should help the people create villages again- rebuild the houses, neighborhoods, schools, markets, hospitals, worship and social centers, and farms that are the fabric of the common good. The Peace Corps and the equivalent from every nation should join together.
The US military, after 8 years of Cheney/Rumsfeld, is in no condition to do good works without massive re- training. Good and honest soldiers are traumatized and exhusted. Bad and dishonorable soldiers are hell-bent to get their piece of the vengence pie. There are more bad apples than there ever were before. Soldiers of both kinds have been trained in techniques and under ethical standards that can not bring honor to our country. The unetical trainers, contractors or military personnel who are responsible for this degradation of the American military are melting back into American society, like Larry James now Dean of Physchology at an Ohio State University, to further poison our “homeland” common good with their ethical rationalizations for torture and murder.
And drones have no ethics to question….
There’s no reason this can’t be part of a broader strategy using both hard power and smart power.
And then there was the criminal referral in the Hiwa case in November 2004.
That makes at least six.
TYPO ALERT:
Headline: “Dosen’t”
Maybe its too late at night and people are prying their eyes open with toothpicks?
(*G*)
Bob in HI
Just repeating what bobschacht said:
BTW, EW’s piece on Rizzo was regarded as a scoop over at Think Progress
Torture architect John Rizzo is still serving as the CIA’s acting general counsel.
Rizzo’s old CIA “about” page
Here’s an old Think Progress piece on Rizzo from right after the election:
CIA Torture Advocate John Rizzo Says Obama Must Deal With Interrogation Program ‘Immediately’
Bob in HI
Howard Kurtz asks in Monday’s WaPo whether newspapers can be saved.
Really? Why ever not?
The thing is, newspapers have to stop thinking of themselves as newspapers (which over-commits themselves to a particular medium) and think of themselves as organizations devoted to gathering, analyzing and packaging news, in any and all media.
Bob in HI
Follow the micro-payment
http://www.revolutionmagazine……nt-system/
As I recall it was non-newspaper people who went to airports and tracked rendition airplanes by their tail numbers and then connected the dots to determine where these prisoners were being sent.
Then bloggers reported it.
What did newspapers do?
EW, is it possible that the 2005 “videotape study” is a distinct CIA work product?
The article refers to the CIA OIG report as “a secret 2004 report”, and
“the “top secret” May 7, 2004, inspector general report”
Whereas the videotape study is called the “The videotape study” and
“a classified 2005 study by the agency’s lawyers of dozens of interrogation videotapes”
It still does not explain the referrals denial, as it is clear in that part they are talking about the IG report, but if there are not 2 different work products, then the WaPo article is horribly edited…..
Thanks–you’re right that it’s not an IG report (I’ve corrected accordingly). It was done by OGC, per Jello Jay.
A filing (Declaration of Constance Rea) in the ACLU FOIA case has a statement about non-referral the Bushies may be parsing around:
Although actions were referred (in 5 cases), they were not present on videotape reviewed by the OIG. Unless questions are asked carefully with a good grasp on all the different memos and reports, then these “sources” can mislead and parse and deceive with abandon.
The first of Fisher’s referrals- on February 6, 2003- suggests that the criminal action was earlier than the general OIG special inquiry on techniques which started at the end of January. The timing suggests that whatever was done to warrant the February 6 referral might have:
1. Made them stop videotaping.
2. Made them start using the pulse oximeter for waterboarding.
3. Made the CIA internally formalize confinement and interrogation (January 28, 2003 Interrogation Guidelines and Confinement Guidelines referenced in 2005 Bradbury Techniques Memo)
4. Sparked the wider CIA OIG techniques review.
5. Precipitated the urgent briefings of the “
gangmenage offourtrois” on Feb 4 and Feb 5.My money is on someone getting carried away with al-Nashiri on the waterboard in revenge for the Cole. Maybe a former SEAL or SERE instructor working as a contractor….
That’s a chilling timeline, drational. Have you put that together into a post anywhere? (Assuming you’re not going to wait “until the debate dies down” :>)
Which can only mean that there are a slew of additional internal memoranda, email and reports regarding these panic responses. These will respond to what Congress was asking for, and how to “reverse engineer” their programs to make it appear that they were compliant. #2 should be quite interesting…as it will clearly state that they need to have something that would detect an approach to serious organ damage that was not being used before. It may also state that doctors are/were not present, and why.
Thank you.
I’ve bolded the sentences that I think is a key part of the mental-intellectual quicksand ahead.
I can see this discussion a few weeks down the road raging in part because people are talking about TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. It’s going to be important to be very, very clear about PRECISELY what people mean in coming weeks, IMHO. For exactly the reason you point out.
Those who have done this are surely counting on us ‘little pepl’ to talk about AAAa, which will then allow them to counter with the fact that we are full of shit because the intended topic was AAAA.
And someone else will be talking about AAaA, and then get smacked because Cheney and his cabal meant AaAA.
“They’re all A’s”, Limbaugh and Rush will sneer. Along with Cheney.
I think there are a lot of trap doors, quicksand, and false passages planted in whatever docs Cheney left behind.
Feb 5, 2003 was the day that Colin Powell spoke to the UN.
Here’s a handy way to consider your point. Think of those bundles of mortgages. They sold them as AAA, when they were really junk mortgages. So, when it comes to the torture records, we don’t want to allow them to feed the public “junk info” as if it is “gold standard info.” Bond-rating agencies were willing collaborators in selling the junk as “high grade.” Too many reporters in the MSM may swallow junk leaks. We need to keep our eyes peeled – as good consumers should!
We may need to use this metaphor a lot: Financiers hoodwinked people. Don’t be hoodwinked with this either!
For the Goopers, Torture has been all about “the SERE Program” and “doing it to our own troops” as ‘legitimizers’ for Bush’s EIT Torture Program.
Only, they say, Used on Detainees, it’s more Real – it’s more Poignant.
That’s right. It’s more Real.
It’s a Whole Lot more Poignant, too, when you take “the SERE Program” and “doing it to our own troops” and you balance that out with “five Criminal Referrals.”
What are the chances that a Waterboarding/Torture Detainee Death occured – at the hands of an interrogator who thought he was ‘legally’ empowered to use Waterboarding, etc from an SOP developed directly from Bush’s alleged “whatever it takes – the gloves are off” EO on Torture?
Would that – which sounds like the Promise of a “Free Pass on Murder” – make it even More Real…More Poignant?
Wouldn’t it be More Poignant if you take “the SERE Program” and “doing it to our own troops” – and you Twist the Words to ‘Legally’ Cover Torture…
…and Then, if you’re the Bushies, you Hide the Depravity – the Human Cost – from the Public, Congress and the Courts – by Lying.
What could be More Poignant than knowing – Behind Bush’s Secret Twisted Words and Lies – which Green-Lighted and White-Washed Statutory Torture – are Tortured Bodies crying for Justice?
I love seeing Tinkerbell when I come here.
ooooohhhh, and if I sit very still and listen very hard, the dim, whispered ‘tick, tock… tick, tock…’ seems to be lurking in the dark waters just barely out of sight. But coming closer by the day.
Zelikow does not seem to be afraid of crocodiles.
Nor does Sen. Carl Levin, nor Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.
All the bad guys go to prison or hung out to dry in Target parking lot. This may happen…after the newsprints all go outta business.
Good Morning Emptywheel and community –
is it news that WH is set to release 5/04 IG Report ??
Greg Sargent reporting
never mind
This is the Best paragraph in the WaPo article:
I am ready for this one.
Speaking of things the media do not report: CNN’s showing video of Chee-knee picking Limbaugh over Powell.
His mention of Bush approving the torture? *crickets*
typo in heading here and at fdl: Dosen’t should be Doesn’t
delete this….
While I am a huge fan of EW and am glad to have her so seriously on the case, I can’t get over the fact that the U.S. is in the midst of a completely worthless debate over torture.
Nice bit of blog whoring there. I regret clicking through. If you want to take your ball and go home, please do. The rest of us have work to do to put an end to this horrific practice and to hold those who did it to account.
The analogy is flawed. Obama isn’t McGuire or Sosa “at their prime”. He’s McGuire or Sosa at the beginning of their careers…when McGuire was a 30 homer a year batter out of the minors. He’s got to make a decision. Does he do it “because everyone else did it” (maybe…maybe not…at least then)? Does our continuing do it mean that local police in every municipality can then do it, for any crime? Can parents do it to their kids? Neighbor kids?
Jeeze…it’s just like kids in High School takin’ droids because they want to be successful, get that scholarship, go pro. What’s wrong with that?
MSNBC now: Cheney says “he [Bush] basically authorized it.”
from Bob Schieffer interview. Hmmm, plausible deniability for Bush? Will the media ask? Is Cheney pullin’ a Blago?
Is Cheney pullin’ a Blago?
wrt the media whoring, yeah.
and hopefully some judge will also stop The Dick before he gets himself booked on “I’m a Celebrity – Get Me Outta Here” (or whatever the name of that show is supposed to be).
After WWII, we tried and executed one General Yamashita for actions taken by troops under his command. This idea of Command Responsibility was the counterpart to Nuremberg. Following illegal orders is no excuse, neither is failure to have your legal orders followed.
We have ample precedent to bring Bush to the bar of Justice.
I’m with drational – it was al-Nishiri, after Zubaydah and before KSM – and they only Waterboarded him twice, I’m guessing, because his second time went badly wrong.
I would also guess that he actually drowned on the Waterboard – which would have brought about the switch (noted by JimWhite) from using fresh water to salinated water – and possibly neccessitating a Tracheotomy to recover him, as suggested by EW in the linked article in drational’s 32.
Also, drat’s 32 contains a list of “crisis response”-type adjustments that ‘look like’ a reaction to the ‘liability’ of someone dying, or nearly dying on them.
And, lastly, I agree that this is likely the work of ex-SEALs/SERE Contractors.
Under questioning from Congress over the Plaza Shoot-em-Up, Blackwater CEO Prince said that he thought his men were operating under the UCMJ in Iraq.
If so, then it’s possible that SMUT-Force could have been a Blackwater Contract…specially missioned and compartmentalized through the CIA/DoD in order for Bush and Cheney to “control” the Detainee-Information Process.
If you read the linked diary in 32, I think both Zubaydah and al-Nashiri had eventful waterboarding. The Bybee 2005 footnote of the soon to be released! CIA IG report describes someone getting waterboarded to unconsciousness and requiring intervention. I assigned this to AZ because he reports a similar event in his Red Cross interview. But certainly the “only two times” al-Nashiri and some other clues suggest he had a bad waterboarding event too.
It is important to note that the saline and trach kit requirement came later, after the CIA docs got consulted in December 2004. But they were pulse ox monitoring KSM by March 2003, so they knew they were pushing people to the brink of death.
@42, I did put some of that timeline in the linked post in 32.
Basically, I think this was all a big “24″ fantasy, til they almost killed someone (or two), and then those with a conscience started making trouble for the one-percenter sadists.
Thanks for the clarification on the saline and trach kits!
I think you’re right on, again – Bush’s Bubble World, especially in late 2002/early 2003, was largely Bush’s Insanely Over-Driven Jack Bauer Fantasy – over-fed by Bush’s Sychophants – that Bush was Hot on the Trail of a Global Conspiracy by Monolithic Islam to Destroy ‘Murika.
Which is why I think one of the shoes yet to drop is Just How Closely Bush Micromanaged the
Torture Actionthe Detainee Intelligence Gathering Program himself.Personality-wise, and ianapsych, it seems all to easy to imagine Bush – like a Roman Emperor – in a Chair at the site of the Torture, giving his thumb’s down on a Chinese Menu – with Bybee’s fine print on the back.
A guy who makes decisions from his gut and never looks back!
That alone, if his gut told him “Bring it on!”
…never looks back but wants to be entertained all the while…
which makes me think that as well a vengence satisfied with hard data, there are other reaons to expect video torture tapes will be found in brown paper packages.
questions:
Can military contrators (corp or individual employees) be tried for murder in US or other countries? Conspiracy to commit murder?
There is some reason Prince sold out and turned his talents(?) to another lucrative security(?) sideline.
How do these military contracts read about reponsibility…did that clause change anytime in the seven years?
Blackwater presumably had a clause in their contract with the State Department that placed them in the situation as US military. That status would have surely have changed with the new Treaty. But whether it changed before that, I can’t say.
thanks…wonder how that clause sounds?
and thanks also to radiofreewill.
But the monster Bush is lazy. Monster Cheney is not lazy.
BTW did Prince get the medal of honor too? or was the $ enough?
Palli – I think the answer to your questions regarding Contractor liability for murder and conspiracy in US and International Courts is generally ‘yes,’ but ianal and the situation in Iraq/Afghanistan is complicated.
In addition to claims being made of ‘absolute immunity’ from prosecution by Blackwater in the Plaza Killings – not very UCMJ-like, imvho – there is also what Cheney referred to as “working the Dark Side, if you will.”
I’ve always taken that quote to mean that Bush and Cheney were willing to Cloak “Loyalty to the UE”-based Law-Breaking in the Name of “Neocon National Security”, hence all the State Secrets Invocations with the Warrantless-Wiretapping Contractors (ATT, Verizon, etc), for instance.
We can call it ‘cleverness’ on Bush’s part, but my analysis of Bush is that he utterly Lacks the Judgment to know the difference between ordering an Infantry Brigade to Ambush a Military Convoy and Waterboarding an ‘enemy combatant.’
He’s a 100%, Ends Justify the Means guy, lacking respect for any restraint.
Imvho, he truly is a Monster.
Real Professionals would never go along with Bush – but Contractors would – especially if they get their Money and their ‘guarantee’ that they’ll be Cloaked for Loyally Breaking the Law.
Ackerman obtained a copy of Fredman’s letter where he attempted to clear the record on his “If the detainee dies, you’re doing it wrong” statement, story at Washington Independent.
http://washingtonindependent.c…..-character
Also wanted to make sure everyone is aware that Valtin obtained a copy of the Pike Report, excerpt currently on the wreck list over in Orange. The Pike Report’s conclusions on the stonewalling/obstruction by CIA and the (non-existent)state of oversight of CIA look strangely familiar…
Fredman is also in the Post story,
Yeah, all the legal stuff is going to look ugly, and his little quip about killing the detainees is going to sound ugly, but notwithstanding sound and sight to the contrary, none of it actually “is” ugly. CIA had them a jewel in Fredman.
I’m also wondering if there isn’t a lot of the “interrogation tapes” floating around on hard drives and in digital editing equipment. I can’t conceive that the upper echelons of the agency would sit around for 100 hours watching these tapes. They had to be placed together into a “greatest hits” version (sorry, bad pun)- a summary of either the “key disclosures” or what they viewed as “effective techniques”. There has been mention of a “training tape”. That might have been such a compilation. Another is mentioned of a virtual tour of the “secret foreign CIA prisons”.
If the videos were sent over an internal CIA wire they likely would have been sent digitally (easier to encrypt than analog). I’d hope that a Congressional committee/DOJ asks for any material/media/hardware that relates to the processing, transmission, and editing of these interrogations that might preserve any record of the original tapes.
in response to Loo Hoo @3:
my dictionary gives, as the very first definition: physically painful
That, I think was the CIA’s intended meaning.
[edited to add this was supposed to be in response to WO at 10 ]And tie the emails in that case, highlighting the understanding that taking protected persons and sending them to other countries and confining them there is considered, within the text of the Conventions, a “grave breach” and add in the CIA analyst’s report from 2002 (a link provided by –fatser?? – in a previous thread to an article about Candace Gorman puts puts the date of the analyst’s report more specifically in August, 2002 as opposed to just “late summer” which is how Mayer’s book describes it) that lots of people at GITMO should be there and you have the makings of multiple war crime issues, that don’t need proof of abuse, the prima facie case is made by their existence in Cuba. Again, no wonder there was such resistance to releasing names.
In any event, the MCA helped take care of all that, changing our war crimes act from applying to all grave breaches of the conventions to only applying to specific pick and choose items they listed.
What have you got on that, Mary? I keep reading about a change in the-law?- but haven’t seen the source.
I don’t have the time right now to link through the changes, but something like this article will give you a basic understanding:
http://www.globalissues.org/ar…..rosecution
Most of the articles deal with the fact that they leave off the “outrages upon personal dignity” from the listings of specifics, but I’m not sure that some things that are outrages upon personal dignity would have been treated as “war crimes” under even the prior grave breaches approach of the old War Crimes Act. However, the Conventions themselves internally define, in Article 147, certain things as being “grave breaches”
emph added
[I’m not going to go off in the weeds on the taking hostages issue, although that is also implicated by things like not only KSM’s children but tactics that our military was using in Iraq for awhile, gathering up women and/or children and taking them to places like Abu Ghraib with the message that their men would have to turn themselves in (and become subject to the “GITMOized” detention/interrogation policies) in order to secure their release – of course some of the women we took as hostages were then put to death or killed themselves for the dishonor aspects of being assumed to have been raped by the Americans while they were held too – damn, it’s too hard to keep to one topic)]
Anyway – Article 147 would make it very clear that the GCs intend for the transport and confinement and deprivation of regular trials for protected persons are all internally defined as “grave breaches” I’d have to go dig up the old language in our War Crimes Act, and while it may not have been “grave breaches” it is something so similar that there was no way you could say that the list of things the GCs themselves call grave breaches wouldn’t be included. So, as of August 2002, everyone knew that GITMO was a petri dish teeming with hundreds of very evident, very clear cut, Article 147 “grave breaches” They also knew that until Bradbury’s 2005 “combined” memo (that extended protection for abuse to not just abusing “high level al-Qaeda operatives” but to any “detainee”) there was no fig leaf of coverage for the the crimes that were committed against those detainees, and even under Bradbury’s memo, there was no way around the issue of transport of protected persons to GITMO. He would explain away the War Crimes act by saying that the EITs weren’t “torture” and so were A-OK, but even Bradbury couldn’t come up with a way of saying that the prohibition on transport of protected persons could be dealt with (although Goldsmith tried to set up a work around on that topic). In particular, since he was writing a reliance opinion, he’d have to include in his factual recitations that we are holding innocent, non-combatants and have transported them to GITMO and confined them there against their will (under abuse that somehow isn’t torture) and THEN on those facts explain away Article 147. Even he wouldn’t go there.
Lucky for Bush’s DOJ – Congress would happily do what they wouldn’t – and so the War Crimes Act was re-written to pick and chose a few crimes and ignore what the Conventions themselves define as grave breaches.
Thanks so much. Basic is best for me. Doesn’t sound like anyone in the cabal would be able to walk even with the changes, assuming there will be trials.
More re: 47 – that’s a very good article, thanks for the link. They put Haynes on the line as telling GITMO guys that the CIA applications are ok for them too – apparently with no concern for the UCMJ.
be careful what you wish for
the CIA calls cheney’s bluff
seems that those “Undisclosed Documents” are subject to interpretation
an people from this planet interpret the data totally opposite of the way the dead eye dick interprets the data
those cia documents ain’t gonna set dick free
Isn’t that delicious? Here’s the direct link to plumline if anyone’s interested:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov……y/?ref=fp1
Could have easily guessed this. Cheney must be suffering a bit from Waldheimer’s Syndrome (he’s forgotten he was a Nazi)…he’s also forgotten that he isn’t Vice President anymore, and that Obama can look at any classified document that Cheney throws out as a “defense”.
But we pretty much knew that no serious terrorist threats were thwarted on US soil from simply looking at the 6-7 “Orange Alerts” that Heimat (Homeland) Security threw at us. Not one was associated with the arrests or apprehension of any terrorists that were involved in an imminent attack. Not one arrest would have been of an individual that KSM or Abu Zubaydah would have know about. Homeland Security’s Tom Ridge admitted, time and again, that the alerts were downgraded after the threats were discovered to be hoaxes and falsehoods by an “al Qaida source”.
AZ didn’t give up critical information about KSM, Mullah Omar, bin Laden, or al Zawahiri. At most they got a nickname that was widely known amongst AQ and even others associated with bin Laden. And I suspect that was given to the FBI interrogators. KSM, likewise gave up a whole bunch of attacks and plans that were already widely reported in the media (typical serial killer egotism…but expected, as well, in someone being tortured and prompted). All that would have done was muddy up who may have actually been involved. And any “prospective” attack info…or locations of bin Laden, al Zawahiri. Mullah Omar, etc. was simply useless.
Oh joy:
Is the U.S. formally at war in Afghanistan? If so, with whom? I mean, you can’t be at war with Afghanistan … Is there some piece of paper governing all this?
We’re in Afghanistan as part of the NATO ISAF “mission,” which as far as I know does not mean we’re at war, although loose talkers here will also refer to it that way, and gosh knows we are losing soldiers at a higher rate than anyone else. But I don’t believe that we are “at war.”
“If so, with whom”
Terror.
Where have you been? You just better hope you Canadians don’t get terrified, bc if there’s one person infected with terror anywhere, we bomb the whole building/village. Unfortunately, it’s the only way to deal with terror. It has been working well for us in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, bombing terrified people – but we don’t feel required to limit ourselves. After all, we aren’t at war with Pakistan either, but we do have a GLOBAL war on Terror.
I thought we were just at war with Al Qaeda since they attacked us. What makes you think we’re still doing the GWOT thing?
technically, I think we’re at war with the Taliban, a rebel belligerent force
I know that the UN representation for Afghanistan was never surrendered to the taliban, and the officially recognized government of Afghanistan was never defeated or extinguished by the taliban. the current government was formed with the cooperation of the former officially recognized government
so Afghanistan resembles Vietnam, we’re supporting a weak government against a guerrilla revoultion
However, the situation in Afghanistan is more complex because of the different ethnic factions and languages involved. Basically, we’re intervening in a civil war. The Obama administration has carefully identified our opponent as Al Qaeda, which is an ethnic faction with no historical roots in Afghanistan. Then there are the Taliban, some of whom support Al Qaeda, others who don’t, and the Taliban are, IIRC, ethnically Pashtun, which is the dominant ethnic group of eastern and southern Afghanistan. The ethnic situation in Northern Afghanistan is completely different. Our initial invasion was supported by the northern tribes, and we basically let them do most of the work of fighting.
Complicating the situation, of course, is the Afghan – Pakistan border, and the possibility that the center of Taliban strength is on the Pakistani side. But the Taliban are an ethnic minority in Pakistan.
Compared to that, the situation in Vietnam was crystal clear.
Bob in HI
There were UN sanctions against the Taliban, many placed on it subsequent to the US Embassy bombings during the Clinton Administration for their protection of bin Laden. Ironically, there were negotiations going on with the Taliban regarding opium production and oil pipelines under Bush.
I think I’ve read the Bushies paid the Taliban about $34M to declare the growing of opium poppies unholy.
Somehow I doubt that ‘news’ story. It really doesn’t sound very Bush-like.
OT for the main thread: re, Afghanistan
I don’t claim to know even 1/1000th of the issues at play.
However, I don’t recall VietNam being a place where the US wanted enough stability to be able to run pipelines (from the Caspian or any other sea).
Also, it’s unclear whether the soils are very stable at this point — what crops can they grow? Poppies, but what about foods? Livestock?
FWIW, I had a dim recollection of my parents hosting some Afghanis or Pakistanis in my childhood, so I asked my ancient father about it recently. He seemed to have a very clear memory about their concerns regarding salinized soils, which had occurred over time as the lands of Iran and Afghanistan (and Turkey) almost certainly build the original canal systems, and small leaks and leakages of water have altered the soils. In the 1960s, these engineers had come to try and learn about the US Bureau of Reclamation canal systems in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho in hopes of finding some answers or solutions to their problems of soil degradation due to salinization.
He recalls being fascinated by their infatuation of American cars, and their astonishment that every family in our town had a car — and all the children went together to the same public schools.
My dim memory is of a wife (I believe an Afghan woman; extremely gracious) explaining to me that there was not such a thing as a library in her large city, except at the university. So children evidently did not have anything like the weekly “Story Time” that my neighbors and I enjoyed.
Some years back, I had a wonderful student for a short time. He was from Afghanistan originally; his family had fled the Soviets and barely survived camps in Pakistan. He said he didn’t feel it was worth the risk going back; too many landmines.
So the soils are degraded, there are untold numbers of landmines, and heroine is the largest crop. Oh, and are the Soviets really going to let us peacefully rebuild that nation if they think we’re only doing it as a way to get access to pipeline ‘rights-of-way’?
300-dimension chess, at least.
Afghanistan is a highly variable country, with relatively wet mountains in the Northeast, and dry plains in the Southwest. As in most parts of the Middle East, with peace, stability, and infrastructure, the prospects for agriculture are good. The Southwest is typical arid basin that once held one of the major cities of western Asia, with a large agricultural sustaining area watered by the Helmand River. Salinization is a problem unless the water is managed correctly, but that is just as true in Iraq as in Afghanistan. Poppies actually grow best in mountain meadows.
Same deal in SW Iran, which is what I know most about. Same time, similar group of engineers was trying to do the Tennessee Valley Authority thing. The area has become dominated by sugar cane agribusiness. You could do the same thing in Afghanistan, but what you need is stability, peace, and infrastructure development, and in Afghanistan these days that’s three strikes against them.
Bob in HI
Fascinating.
I don’t see our current policies having anything to do with pipes.
That’s not what I have heard from a Fulbright Scholar who I came to know rather well while he was studying at Ohio University. He is now back in Afghanistan working in the Karzai government.
I am still communicating with him. Not good.
He has also brought up uranium depostis in Afghanistan.
Just what Afghanistan needs, McCrystal balls.
Maybe they can use them to figure out how many civilians are being bombed into oblivion or dismemberment on any given day.
Jeebus. Stanley McChrystal was the head of special operations in Iraq (including the ’special’ mission units EW blogged about recently).
And now he’s Obama’s/Gates’ choice to command the expanding, metastasizing military / spook presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
I knew I’d hate this part of the new administration, but I never expected to hate it this much this fast.
I never expected to hate it this much this fast
I know – it knocks your feet out from under you some.
OT, but unless things have changed, today is the day that Obama’s crew are trying to get the GITMO/Reprieve defense lawyer jailed over their letter to Obama.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/…..172JDM.DTL
Torture case lawyers may face jail for letter
Thanks for that Mary. Our media here in the UK have not as far as I can see picked up on this. It’d better be frivolous or it might turn into a diplomatic incident – not because the UK Govt. wants it to but because there would be such an almighty fuss if Stafford-Smith was jailed and our Government is collapsing around us.
Our media here in the UK have not as far as I can see picked up on this.
The Guardian actually broke the story, although the SF Chron story Mary linked is both more recent and a fuller account.
McChrystal was also “General at middle of Pat TIllman Silver Star mess”:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..-of-Af-Pak
Breaking: Greg Sargent reports that Bob Graham states he never received a briefing on waterboarding in 2002, nor even on EIT’s at that time.
Thanks for that. I have been wondering about Graham for some time. I don’t think he would have just quietly gone along with torture. He prided himself on his knowledge of security issues and would have known that torture is anti-productive.
I still think Graham’s move from presidential candidate to retiring from the Senate in just a few weeks is related somehow to this whole story. I suspect he became very disillusioned once he realized what was really going on in our names. I wish Sargent had questioned him about that, too.
This is consistent with the claim Graham made a few weeks ago on NPR’s On Point program.
For me the most interesting bit of Sargent’s post:
This was something we speculated on when the CIA document was first released, the presence of staffers was inconsistent with what we have heard for years that members of Congress could talk to no one about their highly classified briefings (whether regarding wiretapping or torture) — not even their staff members.
But doesn’t it sound as if Members could not talk to each other or even their own staff? That no matter who was briefed along with them, that the matters were so secret, they simply could not confer with anyone at all! Nonsensical as that may sound, it sounds like the ground-rules they had to live by. If I’m understanding this correctly.
That’s just it, if they were briefed with a member of their staff, there would be no reason they could not discuss the briefing with each other.
More to the point though, Graham specifically says that the members of Congress would not have been given such highly classified briefings with staffers present, because that would have violated tight constraints on the most highly classified information. IOW, he had experience receiving briefings on “tight hold” information without staffers present. So, from his experience the inclusion of staffers on the list is suspect, because that is not how CIA briefings of that nature worked.
This adds a whole new wrinkle to the veracity of the CIA briefings document. Were the staffers names added to give the appearance of having witnesses to testify to the accuracy of the document? Were there separate briefings, those with staffers and those without? If so, why weren’t those fully noted in the document? Of course, maybe Graham isn’t telling the truth. But clearly, someone is lying here. And given that the CIA won’t make the claim that this document is accurate, they get first dibs on being untruthful in my book.
That said, as Mary notes @90, there are much more important failures going on here, but even so, everything about the CIA briefings doc is suspect.
All the more reason to appoint a Special Prosecutor.
It is wildly improbable that they would have given briefings that were not even being given to the full Gang of 8 to a made up Gang of 4, plus staffers. It’s not impossible, bc for security reasons the President could probably, technically, have done it, but that would then go to the Presidential statement that would have been required, under the Nationa Security Act, to be given if the heads of the intel committees are given briefings that don’t go to the full committees – that statement should say who the briefers are authorized to brief and why the President has decided to brief less than the full committees.
It hasn’t been mentioned or produced.
In addition, the briefing should have been about an actual Presidential Finding or Directive telling the intel agencies to do something or that they are authorized to do something. It makes no sense to have a briefing that is about a “legal memo we got from DOJ about things we can legally do but we aren’t saying that we are going to do them or have done them or what the President wants us to do” No one is asking about the directive either – which, if it was in writing, should have been also provided to the heads of the intel committees as a part of the briefing (not to keep, but at least to see or be advised about – and that directive would have answered in large part whether or not the briefings were about hypothetical extents of authority or actual directives from the President to act.
Also, the CIA isn’t the only entity that can brief Congress. Did the FBI ever make any attempt to brief Congress? You have to think that when the CIA is engaged in a program so atrocious that the FBI has to pull off it’s most experienced al-Qaeda investigators and bar them from participation – even while Bin Laden is uncaught and *supposedly* everyone is worried about a follow up attack — you’d have to think that at some point, someone would have, should have, could have briefed someone in Congress about that, and if not, there should be a big “WHY” hovering out there.
Again, lots of nuts and bolts out there that haven’t had much of a look yet and never get addressed in the MSM pieces.
Somebody needs to make up a list of questions. Then we can say, well that’s a question on the list or now that’s finally been answered.
The presence of staffers is inconsistent with the stories that were told and no one seems to have spoken with the staffers much either.
It’s also the case that there should have been a presidential finding and there should have been a presidential statement re: limiting the briefings – not any info coming out or questions being asked on that, either.
Lots of real nuts and bolts questions that are out there unasked, unanswered.
Graham said it years ago also.
Most often, the Taliban negotiate with those (See SWAT area in Pakistan) whom they are going to shoot next.
Good to know!
EW/Bmaz/all.. a bit of a tangle on Hardball tonight over the words of Cheney on Face the Nation on Sunday about what 43 knew about the “methods”(torture) used. Lawrence O’Donnell went a round or two on the use of the word “basically” when it came to what 43 knew or did not know. Interesting round. Will look for link at Hardball
Lawrence O’Donnell and Pat Buchanan went around or two on 43 “basically” knwoing about the new torture policy. This clip is not up at Hardball yet. What and when did Bush know about the torture tecnigues.
CHris Matthews and now Ed are jumping all over Cheney’s bones tonight. Wondering why he just will not go away.
Ed of the Ed Show just said this about the former V.P. “Cheney comes out about every 30 days flapping his jaws talking smack” about Obama.
Classic
Hi, I am new to commenting to this site, but not to reading it. Anyway, I came across a February 7, 2002 memorandum signed by Bush called, Humane Treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees, that doesn’t seem to be in the Torture Timeline. It is based on the January 25, 2002 Gonzales memo regarding the Geneva Conventions and detainees.
The problem is I can’t seem to link the document. Whatever I do just takes me to an emptywheel 404. Can someone tell me how to make an actual link? Thanks!
Hi there Seashell and welcome, hope you participate often. Generally, you highlight the text you want to turn into a link then click on the little symbol up above the text box that looks like a chain link. A dialogue box pops up clear the text in it and past in your full URL and click okay. your link will then be built into the text in the text block that you originally highlighted. There you go.
Thanks for that information.
Hey Seashell, when I clicked on the chain link, at the top of my screen a message appeared asking if I want to allow a script prompt to be displayed. After responding Temporarily Allow Script, the dialog asking for a URL was presented.
I don’t get that dialog maryo2. Wish I did!
You may have disabled the javascript that needs to run in your browser in order for you to be able to click that link and see the message that mary02 describes.
Across the very top of your computer screen you should see your browser options — the far right of which is usually ‘Help’. Try clicking on the HELP option, then type in ‘javascript’ and it should bring up a list of topics. You want ‘enable javascript’.
May not solve the problem, but I’ve seen this hang up the blog software in the past, so give it a try. (Javascript is very common in all browsers and there are a lot of features that rely on it to make web pages function properly — it’s a way to put less strain on web servers by kind of allowing certain ‘updates’ to occur right on web pages without having everyone go hit the servers every single time they want to do something. Hope this explanation helps…)
bmaz, thanks for your fast reply. The problem is that when I do click on the chain and insert the link, the link is preceded by a link to this page first. For example:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake……C%5C%5C%22
immediately followed by the link I really want. What I can’t seem to figure out is how to get rid of the link to this page first. I’ve tried HTML code, BB code and Wiki Code. None of them work! I’m using Firefox, the latest version on Windows Vista, if that helps.
One other option is to just cut and paste the web page address, without trying to use the link option.
Heh heh, we are probing the outer limits on my computer geek competence here. CAn you not just put your cursor in there and erase the unwanted stuff? If not, try what RoTL said @122. Sorry, I am a Mac twit and don’t understand PC, too much.
Will some of you PC experts chip in and help here please?
Try doing it at the home page for emptywheel? (what do I know…)
Your reference to HTML makes me think you might already know and/or have tried this, but to make inline links by hand:
[a href=”http://url.here”]Clickable text[/a]
Replace square with pointed brackets for the real thing.
I think that’s the easiest and neatest way to go too.
Just make sure, seashell, that you insert those quotation marks before and after the URL. And then you can write whatever you like in the space that Nell calls “clickable text.”
seashell55, I created a small text file on how to manually create a text link. It is basically the same thing as Nell shows in comment # 129, but it has a bit more of a how-to description.
You can download this how-to text file at Mediafire here.
Seashell,
I’m working from memory here, but it sounds like what you’re seeing is the code you see in preview mode. That extra stuff goes away when you actually post, IIRC.
Try an experiment, and see what happens. Like someone else suggested, you can also just put the URL in the text, in parentheses. Of course, that is workable for short urls, but not so much for long ones.
Oh yeah, and welcome to the Lake!
Bob in HI
OK, trying your suggestion.
Humane Treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees.
Thanks to all for your suggestions. I also tried with IE and got the same thing.
bob, you were soooo right! It works fine once it’s submitted. Thank you so much.
So THAT’S how you do it. I was hoping somebody would sooner or later explain how to do that. Thnx.
Folks, I’m vouching for seashell – in worth here, she’s way more valuable than I can be.
Thanks for the vouching, TheraP!
They really need you here, seashell. You have a lot to contribute. As I say, you’re worth way more than me!
On the Ed Show a reporter from the Nation stated that Pelosi should come on out and take the Republicans efforts to “muddy the waters” on the torture issue and their efforts for MAD (mutually assured destruction). He said Pelosi should offer to testify and should ask for all memos to be released.
I cannot figure out if Cheney and Goss et al are stupid or delusional.
They are basically taunting the Dems to push this to open discussion.
And they are together stating that the Dems were complicit. They seem to be trying to say the Dems cannot be trusted to host committee inquiries. They are essentially playing chicken with a special prosecutor as the likely outcome.
So could this at all be part of a logical plan?
I am starting to be convinced that they think full disclosure and real investigations are inevitable. And as such, they might be angling to get this out of congress where they control no committees. Maybe they think they will get a fairer shake from independent prosecutorl?
Either that or they are just playing reckless because they know that democrats are perpetual victims and will in the end decide to move on.
The Dems should call their bluff. If they do not that would point to knowing
That’s exactly what I was thinking this am, Drational. It’s a game of chicken.
Dem Patriots, Time to Stand Up! Time to call for a full investigation.
I assume that they think they have this wired somehow.
With respect to their conduct, as bizarre as it may seem I would sure like some kind of confirmation from some omniscient, omnipotent power that could confirm there aren’t any ’swaps’ out there in AIG-land written to pay out if some dreadful scenario occurs, or written out to pay off if Congress creates some kind of commission or whatever. That may sound weird, but it appears that ’swaps’ were written to cover things almost as bizarre as ‘the sun will rise in the west tomorrow’, so here’s hoping that no one is playing some kind of economic mojo weirdness here.
But it sure does look like either a game of chicken OR the Cheneybots are backed into such a corner that they don’t see any other options left but to come out fighting; which is ‘chicken’ by another name. They’ve intimidated people and subverted systems for so long that I doubt they really have any other modes of operating. (shrug…)
… as for seashell, depending on what browser and operating system she/he is using, the icons for the linkies may not be visible above the ‘response’ box where she/he writes the comment.
seashell, look just beneath the pink highlighted ‘Replying to [personA] @# — the icon for creating a hyperlink is the second from the right — just to the left of a ‘check my spelling/abc’ icon. Click that little ‘link looking icon’ and it will bring up a box in which you paste the link.
Wait – there’s a preview function??
Why, I have never used such a thing (ask anybody here; I put out all kinds of garbage).
bmaz,
When you’re writing a comment, like I am now, the Preview function appears in the upper right corner of the comment dialog box. Remember “Preview is my friend”? When you think you’re done with the comment, click on Preview and it will show you how your comment will look. Its a good chance to check whether you’ve done all the formatting, quotes, embedded links etc. correctly. WordPress will then show you what it will look like, and if it looks ok, then you go down and click on the Submit Comment tag like you always do, and Voila! Comment appears, God willin’ and the crick don’t rise.
grins,
Bob in HI
Huh. You don’t say? I’ll get right on that……..
I have a special circuit in my noodle that glosses over all errors in the commenting window _and_ in Preview. Errors are only seen and recognized after the post is up. Thank Goodness for Edit …
But it’s damn good garbage. Most recyclable.
Thanks everyone for all your suggestions and the warm welcomes. So now we now that it does no good to check links in preview mode!
Anyway, this is the document that I came across and noticed was missing in the Torture Timeline. It doesn’t have anything we don’t know, but it does have Bush’s signature on denying detainees the rights contained in the Geneva Conventions. The subject line is:
Humane Treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees.
Also, earlier in the month there was a discussion here of Doug Feith’s role in this whole mess generally, and specifically of how he got around Myer’s objections to ignoring Geneva. It took me awhile but I finally remembered that Phillippe Sands covered Feith’s rather extensive role in this area in his May 2008 Vanity Fair article, The Green Light. According to Sands, Feith’s interest in Geneva goes back to 1985 when he authored an article in the National Interest, where he argued that Geneva’s protections should only apply to those who play by the rules.
According to Feith himself, he explained to Myers in front of Rumsfeld that “[t]here is no country in the world that has a larger interest in promoting respect for the Geneva Conventions as law than the United States…” What he left out of the conversation, however, is that “promoting respect” did not include al Qaeda or the Taliban because either they were not a state or because they did not wear uniforms.
Apologies if this has already been covered. I tried to read everything, but the subject is so large I may have missed something.
Thank you for these, seashell. Don’t you just “love” the irony of that edict to deny humane treatment but call it “Humane Treatment of al Quaida and Taliban Detainees” – as if there was something about the “type” of detainee that warranted “a special type” of “human treatment” = inhumane, of course.
And thanks for that second article. And the conclusions of the psychiatrist. I especially like her summation, because it rings so true to me. True of a clinician to write that way. And true for any competent, caring clinician to think the same about certain things:
I so agree.
Incredible.
I figured Feith for an incredible literalist.
Your thoughts?
Reader, maybe it’s a chicken or egg type of thing, but to me it looks like Feith had a major lead role in the outing of the Geneva Conventions and thus the “legal” torture at GITMO. It sounds likes Bybee’s January 20, 2002 memo to Gonzo was taken directly from Feith’s 1985 National Interest article. (Yet, Feith was able to convince Myer that Geneva would still be respected!)
We hear about Yoo’s and Bybee’s contributions all the time, but I suspect that Feith was behind some of their “legal opinions” and he is barely mentioned.
Preview is my friend, but for some reason, the underline function doesn’t work. Doesn’t show in preview, and doesn’t show in posted comment.
In the first sentence above, the phrase “the underline function doesn’t work” is supposed to be underlined, but machts nichts, it isn’t.
Whassup?
Bob in HI
In a little noticed “hoisted by his own petard” moment, Crazy Pete Hoekstra’s letter to the DNI and CIA last Friday made what seems to be a “jump the shark” typical Repug illogic leap:
(My Bold)
So, the gist of Crazy Pete Hoekstra’s illogic is that the CIA Torture briefing list is incomplete and inaccurate, but that somehow their MFRs are amazingly complete and accurate.
The fact that both can’t be true seems to escape Crazy Pete Hoekstra entirely.
And for the record (consider this my own MFR *g*), might I suggest that the CIA has always had an institutional bias for not keeping accurate records of things?
Hurrah for Seashell! Welcome! Thanks for the link.
Welcome Seashell. Thanks TheraP for the introduction!
(my emphasis)
I linked to this book review for TheraP the other day.
From the author:
Perhaps this explains Feith’s “clever way.”
Sorry I am late to the comments…
Seashell here’s some more-
And this is what we can expect in the future irt Feith’s “clever way”…
Yuval Ginbar author of, Why Not Torture Terrorists?: Moral, Practical and Legal Aspects of the “Ticking Bomb” Justification for Torture, writes:
Thanks for this link and info, klynn. I’m off to read now!
Here’s a nice summation of those, like Feith, connected to U of Chicago & Strauss: The ‘Ignoble Liars’ Behind Bush’s Deadly Iraq War (Interesting, quirky website, lots of other stuff there, read ready to critique.)