Bush OKs Torture. Media Yawns.

/78 Comments/in , /by

abc-screen-cap.jpg

So ABC News had an exclusive interview and got a pretty important scoop last night. You may have heard about it: George Bush, a man who took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, admitted (with zero shame) that he approved of the meetings at which his top advisors discussed and approved the excruciating details of torture.

And, yes, I’m aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved.

The President just admitted that he approved torture.

And thus far at least, no one seems to give a damn. As of 9AM, the NYT published no news of Bush’s admission. The WaPo placed a story on A3 (stating that they had already reported this, even though they hadn’t reported this). ABC, the outlet that got the damn scoop, places the story fourth on its list of stories, behind Obama and Indiana and Hillary telling Bill to "butt out," with the main picture on the front page cycling through such critical stories as a dog who invited himself to his owner’s funeral. Oh–and do you think maybe there’s a connection between the stories of teens beating each other and the President, approving of torture?

This is an exclusive with the President who, after lying about torture for four years, just admitted that he knew and approved of the torture! And yet you place it there among the cute puppy stories?

As for the rest of the news media, thus far, crickets. Though kudos to Randy Scholfield of the Wichita Eagle who–without yet having the news that the Principals did not really insulate Bush from these discussions–states, "Nor will history judge the American people kindly if we look the other way."

I understand Bush’s approval of torture is not news, as in, something the beltway insiders didn’t already know. I agree with Bush, sort of, that this is not startling. At the same time, it appalls me that the President of the United States can admit to approving torture and yet no one finds that unusual, that no one is interrupting existing programming to announce this, that even ABC treats this as one story among the cute puppy and Hill and Bill stories. At the very least, try to muster some outrage that the President has been lying about torture for four years, could ya?

Remember Watergate? Remember "what did the President know, and when did he know it?" Read more →

Share this entry

Bush to Raddatz: “So?”

/84 Comments/in /by

A couple of weeks ago, Dick Cheney interviewed with ABC’s Martha Raddatz, and dismissed the opinion of millions of Americans with a snotty, "So?"

CHENEY: On the security front, I think there’s a general consensus that we’ve made major progress, that the surge has worked. That’s been a major success.

RADDATZ: Two-third of Americans say it’s not worth fighting.

CHENEY: So? [emphasis TP’s]

Tonight, President Bush did a Friday night news dump interview with Raddatz where he effectively said precisely the same thing–only this time about torture (h/t Scarecrow).

President Bush says he knew his top national security advisors discussed and approved specific details about how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, according to an exclusive interview with ABC News Friday.

"Well, we started to connect the dots, in order to protect the American people." Bush told ABC News White House correspondent Martha Raddatz. "And, yes, I’m aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved."

[snip]

In his interview with ABC News, Bush said the ABC report about the Principals’ involvement was not so "startling."

[snip]

In the interview with ABC News Friday, Bush defended the waterboarding technique used against KSM.

"We had legal opinions that enabled us to do it," Bush said. "And, no, I didn’t have any problem at all trying to find out what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed knew."

The President said, "I think it’s very important for the American people to understand who Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was. He was the person who ordered the suicide attack — I mean, the 9/11 attacks."

"So?!?!?!" You’ve never seen a United States President order torture from the Oval Office before, you wuss? Well, get over it. It’s not so startling.

No, President Bush, it’s not startling at all. I understand you don’t have any problem authorizing the water-boarding of KSM.

But I would imagine your efforts to stage a show trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed just got a whole lot more difficult.

Share this entry

Yoo and Academic Freedom

/117 Comments/in , /by

Via Marty Lederman, John Yoo’s Dean, Chris Edley, writes a provocative (though unsurprising) letter regarding John Yoo and academic freedom (h/t scribe). I’ve interspersed some comments and questions between the excerpts below.

Professor Yoo began teaching at Berkeley Law in 1993, received tenure in 1999, and then took a leave of absence to work in the Bush Administration. He returned in 2004, and remains a very successful teacher and prolific (though often controversial) scholar. Because this is a public university, he enjoys not only security of employment and academic freedom, but also First Amendment and Due Process rights.

As I’ve shared with a number of people in comments before, I had a conversation with the Provost of a prestigious private university recently; we spoke about his efforts to ensure the law faculty included good, but conservative, thinkers. I raised Yoo and it was clear that Yoo has become every Dean’s worst hiring nightmare–the young, controversial, but apparently brilliant academic who goes on to do horrible things in government after he has gotten tenure. This whole question would be different, after all, had Yoo not had tenure before he had written these memos.

That said, I’m disappointed that Edley didn’t say more about my biggest worry: Yoo’s teaching. It’s one thing to keep a controversial scholar on faculty because of academic freedom. It’s one thing for that scholar to (as Edley describes elsewhere in his memo) air unpopular views. It’s another thing to have someone who–more than anyone save David Addington on Bush’s legal staff–assaulted the Constitution, doing real damage in the short and potentially long term.

It’s one thing to guard Yoo’s right to write controversial academic articles. It’s yet another to have him teach future lawyers Constitutional Law.

So I’m curious how Edley measures Yoo’s teaching when he compliments it here? Is Yoo well-liked by students? Challenging? Rigorous? But just as importantly, is he teaching future lawyers to do as he has done, deliver the goods for the client even if doing so fundamentally conflicts with the Constitution? Is Yoo training the next generation of lawyers who will approach the law and the Constitution itself with a utilitarian attitude? Do students like Yoo because he teaches them to be the best sophists they can be? I don’t know the answer, but I’d sure like to.

Read more →

Share this entry

Who “We” Included in the Torture Briefings

/107 Comments/in /by

rincewind made an important point in my post on the torture briefings. At least one of the sources for the story must be one of the briefees, not a briefer. rincewind points to these two quotes that come from someone within the committee.

“It kept coming up. CIA wanted us to sign off on each one every time,” said one high-ranking official who asked not to be identified. “They’d say, ‘We’ve got so and so. This is the plan.’”

[snip]

“These discussions weren’t adding value,” a source said. “Once you make a policy decision to go beyond what you used to do and conclude it’s legal, (you should) just tell them to implement it.”

This source obviously considers himself as one of the people receiving the briefing, which further suggests this source is not in the CIA.

As luck would have it, via Troutfishing’s diary and this McGovern piece, I checked out this February 7, 2002 memo in which Bush declares that Al Qaeda will not be entitled to Geneva Convention protections. The memo seems to indicate that it is addressed to all the people who have participated–at least thus far–in discussions on torture; it refers to "our recent extensive discussions regarding the status of Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees." Now check out the list of addressees:

Dick Cheney
Colin Powell
Rummy
John Ashcroft
Andy Card
George Tenet
Condi Rice
Richard Myers

In other words, two of the people whom Bush noted as being involved in "extensive discussions regarding the status of Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees" are not included in the list ABC News gave of the attendees of the meetings that took place slightly later in 2002: Andy Card and Richard Myers. Either is a possibility to be the "high-ranking official" who objected to the repeated discussions of what techniques to use. Certainly, Myers is on the record as having opposed the decision not to extend Geneva Convention protections to Al Qaeda (most recently in reports from Feith’s book). And he would count as "high-ranking" in more than one sense (though neither he, nor Card, is still an official, after all).

Read more →

Share this entry

Torture Telltale Timing

/35 Comments/in /by

Kudos to McClatchy to choose this week to interview Glenn Fine–and to induce him to get unusually chatty. Marisa Taylor reports that DOD is stalling the release of a DOJ IG report on the FBI’s role in torture.

 The release of a report on the FBI’s role in the interrogations of prisoners in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and Iraq has been delayed for months because the Pentagon is reviewing how much of it should remain classified, according to the Justice Department’s watchdog.

Glenn Fine, the Justice Department’s inspector general, told McClatchy that his office has pressed the Defense Department to finish its review, but officials there haven’t completed the process "in a timely fashion."

"Why that happened, I don’t know," Fine said in an interview this week.

Tell me, Marisa Taylor, did Fine have a smirk on his face when he said that? I couldn’t imagine why DOD would be stalling the release of this report!

Though Fine suggests there has been some recent movement in the classification review process.

Fine said the Pentagon now appears to be moving on his request.

"My sense is they are working hard on it now, and I believe we’re going to reach a resolution one way or another in the not-too-distant future," he said. [my emphasis]

Tell me, Glenn Fine, did this sudden responsiveness on the part of the DOD start in the last three weeks or so. You know, since the time when William Haynes left DOD in an awfully big hurry? I couldn’t help but notice that Daniel Dell’Orto got around to declassifying the Torture Memo just weeks (if not days) after Haynes left DOD. I wonder if he has been equally busy clearing Fine’s report for publication.

Share this entry

Remember the Torture Tapes?

/254 Comments/in , /by

Just about everyone is talking about ABC’s confirmation of what we already knew: the torture was approved–in excruciating detail–by the most senior members of the Bush Administration.

In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News.

The so-called Principals who participated in the meetings also approved the use of "combined" interrogation techniques — using different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time — on terrorist suspects who proved difficult to break, sources said.

Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects — whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.

The high-level discussions about these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed — down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.

The advisers were members of the National Security Council’s Principals Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise President Bush on issues of national security policy.

At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Now, the article is actually incredibly vague about which of the high-value detainees the Principals discussed interrogating. For example, it suggests that Abu Zubaydah’s torture was planned by the Principals. But then–where elsewhere it asserts that all of the Principals approved the torture–it backs off that claim specifically with regards to Zubaydah.

But after Zubaydah recovered from his wounds at a secret CIA prison in Thailand, he was uncooperative.

[snip]

The CIA wanted to use more aggressive — and physical — methods to get information.

The agency briefed high-level officials in the National Security Council’s Principals Committee, led by then-National Security Advisor Rice and including then-Attorney General Ashcroft, which then signed off on the plan, sources said. It is unclear whether anyone on the committee objected to the CIA’s plans for Zubaydah.

Read more →

Share this entry

Conyers to Yoo: If You’ll Talk to Esquire, Come Talk to Me

/22 Comments/in , /by

Conyers isn’t quite as reliable as Henry Waxman in calling a hearing approximately 5 work hours after a big scandal. But is reliable in actually calling the hearing (which means Rove should get his invite in about a day and a half):

I write to invite you to appear before the Committee on the Judiciary at our May 6 hearing scheduled to explore issues regarding the nature and scope of Presidential power in time of war and the current Administration’s approach to these questions under U.S. and international law. Among the subjects likely to be explored at the hearing are United States policies regarding interrogation of persons in the custody of the nation’s intelligence services and armed forces, matters addressed in some detail in opinions that you authored during your service as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel. Given your personal knowledge of key historical facts, as well as your academic expertise, your testimony would be invaluable to the Committee on these subjects.

I understand that, in discussions with my staff, you have expressed reluctance to testify voluntarily on such matters. I am hopeful that you have reconsidered that stance, however, given your extensive public comments on these very issues. For example, on April 3, 2008, Esquire magazine published an interview in which you made frank and on-the-record comments regarding the origination, drafting, and scope of OLC interrogation memoranda. Similarly, you provided on-the-record comments on the recently released March 2003 interrogation memorandum to the Washington Post just last week, describing that document as “near boilerplate” and asserting that, in pulling back from the analysis in that memorandum, the Department had “ignored [its] long tradition in defending the President’s authority in wartime.” Overall, you have made such extensive public comments on these and related matters, that it is extremely difficult to understand why you would continue to decline to present your views to the Committee.

To the extent you have raised concerns with my staff that some questions on these matters might call for responses that you believe would be covered by executive privilege or that would implicate executive confidentiality interests, I am confident such concerns can be effectively managed in a setting where you are voluntarily appearing before the Committee. Read more →

Share this entry

Cheney’s Lawyer Now Defending Haynes

/60 Comments/in /by

We’ve discussed the quiet omnipresence of Terry O’Donnell on this blog several times before. O’Donnell is, of course, Dick Cheney’s long-time personal lawyer. We know that David Addington informed Cheney when he discovered the "meatgrinder" note in the evidence being turned over to the FBI in the CIA Leak Case. We also know that O’Donnell took the lead on efforts to convince DOJ not to indict James Tobin–even though O’Donnell was not one of the named Williams & Connolly lawyers representing Tobin.

If the Tobin example didn’t already make it clear that O’Donnell’s job is not just to keep Cheney–but to keep the entire top Bush Administration out of jail–consider this news.

Terry O’Donnell is now representing the former General Counsel for DOD, William Haynes.

The panel notified the Pentagon in early February that it wanted to question Haynes. Before receiving any response, investigators learned on Feb. 25 that Haynes was leaving for Chevron in San Francisco. "How often does somebody like that give two weeks’ notice and leave town?" said one government source familiar with the sequence of events.

Haynes’s departure initially raised concerns about obtaining his testimony without a subpoena, especially after the panel learned that he had retained top criminal defense attorney Terrence O’Donnell, who represented Cheney during the Valerie Plame leak investigation. But O’Donnell told NEWSWEEK that Haynes has agreed to be interviewed, adding that the committee’s probe "had nothing to do" with his resignation.

This mind-boggling news appears in an Isikoff story about a secret Senate Armed Forces investigation into abuses of detainees in DOD custody (recall that Carl Levin Chairs Armed Forces and John McCain is the ranking member–which itself is cause for discussion).

Not surprisingly, Isikoff doesn’t bat an eye about the fact that the Vice President’s personal lawyer is now representing the guy at DOD who is at the nexus of policies permitting torture, the guy who stands between the policies at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, and Rummy and Dick. Isikoff doesn’t consider the tremendous conflict that O’Donnell is likely to have, representing both the legal facilitator of the torture and the mastermind of the whole damned Unitary Executive itself.

Once again, this Administration appears to be defending itself as a collectivity. Read more →

Share this entry

Torquemadas in Single Needle Suits

/54 Comments/in /by

Since I lauded Colonel Pat Lang the other day, and since I fear he interpreted my comment that "Lang’s acerbic commentary lacks all of [Dana] Priest’s balance and moderation" as a critique, I feel duty-bound to link to his post today, riffing on the WaPo timeline describing the Administration’s evolving stance toward torture and the Constitution.

I thought that I had known some tough, ruthless "customers" over the decades, but now I see that they were mostly "wusses."  All those Special Forces soldiers and intelligence people, they just did not "measure up" as tough guys compared to Washington lawyers like the ones cited in this article.

Modern day "Torquemadas" in single needle suits and hand made English shoes.

One must wonder if was mere ambition or a convicion of the rectitude of illegal search and seizure inflicted on American citizens that apealed to these lawyers more in writing these papers.

I suspect that it was ambition.

To make all this even more bitter, the plan clearly was to use American soldiers to do much of this.  (Irony Alert) How grand an idea! In this in way American soldiers could be trained to think that such behavior is appropriate.

Nope. "Lacking all of Dana Priest’s balance and moderation" was definitely not intended as a critique. 

Share this entry

Warrantless Wiretap Memos Timeline

/35 Comments/in , /by

I laid out the OLC opinions described in the Steven Bradbury declaration to the ACLU. In this post, I’ll add in the other significant documents he describes. Note, Bradbury names four documents–OLC 56, 57, and 58, and OIPR 138–which are documents created by the President or his immediate staff, and so are not agency documents; he provides no description of these documents. There are, of course, a great number of documents withheld, which therefore have no description or date.

Materials not included in Bradbury’s memos are not bold.

October 4, 2001, from DAAG OLC to Alberto Gonzales: OLC 132,which consists of two copies, one with handwritten comments and marginalia, of a 36-page memorandum, dated October 4, 2001, from a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in OLC to the Counsel to the President, created in response to a request from the White House for OLC’s views regarding what legal standards might govern the use of certain intelligence methods to monitor communications by potential terrorists.

October 21, 2001, from Ashcroft to Mueller: FBI 7 is a one-page memorandum, dated October 20, 2001, from the Attorney General to the Director of the FBI, advising the Director that certain intelligence collection activities are legal and have been appropriately authorized. The memorandum is classified TOP SECRET.

October 23, 2001, from Yoo and Delahunty to Alberto Gonzales: OLC 146, which is a 37-page memorandum, dated October 23, 2001, from a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in OLC, and a Special Counsel, OLC, to the Counsel to the President, prepared in response to a request from the White House for OLC’s views concerning the legality of potential responses to terrorist activity.

November 2, 2001, from DAAG OLC to John Ashcroft: OLC 131, which consists of two copies, both with underscoring and marginalia, of a 24-page memorandum, dated November 2, 2001, from a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in OLC to the Attorney General, prepared in response to a request from the Attorney General for OLC’s opinion concerning the legality of certain communications intelligence activities.

Read more →

Share this entry