I've Got A Secret...Government
I guess we should have known that when the Bush Administration told us they disowned the 2002 torture memo in 2004, they really didn't mean it. And, in fact, they didn't.
The entire article in the New York Times about the secret torture memo created in February 2005 ("Torture Memo 2.0" as Jack Balkin calls it) is appalling, but this particular section really struck a nerve:
With virtually no experience in interrogations, the C.I.A. had constructed its program in a few harried months by consulting Egyptian and Saudi intelligence officials and copying Soviet interrogation methods long used in training American servicemen to withstand capture. The agency officers questioning prisoners constantly sought advice from lawyers thousands of miles away.
"We were getting asked about combinations -- 'Can we do this and this at the same time?'" recalled Paul C. Kelbaugh, a veteran intelligence lawyer who was deputy legal counsel at the C.I.A.'s Counterterrorist Center from 2001 to 2003.
Interrogators were worried that even approved techniques had such a painful, multiplying effect when combined that they might cross the legal line, Mr. Kelbaugh said. He recalled agency officers asking: "These approved techniques, say, withholding food, and 50-degree temperature -- can they be combined?" Or "Do I have to do the less extreme before the more extreme?"
The questions came more frequently, Mr. Kelbaugh said, as word spread about a C.I.A. inspector general inquiry unrelated to the war on terrorism. Some veteran C.I.A. officers came under scrutiny because they were advisers to Peruvian officers who in early 2001 shot down a missionary flight they had mistaken for a drug-running aircraft. The Americans were not charged with crimes, but they endured three years of investigation, saw their careers derailed and ran up big legal bills.
That experience shook the Qaeda interrogation team, Mr. Kelbaugh said. "You think you're making a difference and maybe saving 3,000 American lives from the next attack. And someone tells you, 'Well, that guidance was a little vague, and the inspector general wants to talk to you,'" he recalled. "We couldn't tell them, 'Do the best you can,' because the people who did the best they could in Peru were looking at a grand jury."
Now I don't know that I'm buying that the CIA has "virtually no experience in interrogations" -- many, including Naomi Klein in her book The Shock Doctrine, have documented the research into torture, brainwashing and interrogation techniques that the CIA has been refining and exporting since the 50s. But beyond that, the statement by Kelbaugh highlights how enabling the whole "war on terror" framework has become. These individuals have put their consciences in check, comfortable in the notion that what they do "maybe saving 3,000 American lives." Really, what they're worried about is having their "careers derailed" and running up "big legal bills."
That we have become a nation of sanctioned torturers doesn't even seem to graze them.
Glenn Greenwald correctly notes that as Americans, we've known that torture is being conducted in our name for a while. There's nothing new about that. But outrage with which these revelations should be greeted is, again, blunted by an acquiescence toward anything that is offered up in the name of the endless war on terror, and our "leaders" appear content to negotiate away their own power and avoid anything that smacks of a political battle.
Says Glenn:
One does not expect an administration to imprison U.S. citizens with no process, or to proclaim explicitly the right to break the law, or to systematically adopt policies of torture. For that reason, it is not surprising that it would take some time for the reaction to catch up to the full extent of the wrongdoing.
But we are now way past the point where that excuse is plausible. Anyone paying even minimal attention is well aware of exactly how radical and corrupt and lawless this administration is. We all know what has happened to our standing in the world, to our national character and our core political values, as a result of the previously unthinkable policies the Bush administration has relentlessly pursued. Ignorance or incredulity can no longer explain our acquiescence. Accommodating and protecting the lawbreaking of high Bush officials is widely seen by our Beltway elite as a duty of bipartisanship, a hallmark of Seriousness.
It's ironic, as many have noted, that today is the same day Patrick Leahy indicated he was going to cave on his request for documents from the Bush Administration before approving Mukasey as Attorney General. That's great. First Leahy wanted documents regarding the USA scandal and warrantless wiretapping. Then he backed down and said he would "settle for material about interrogation of suspected terrorists and warrantless wiretapping." Now he's willing to chuck the whole bucket. Because George Bush what, won't give them to him? This is headline news? Why ask for them in the first place? Is kabuki all the rage in capitol hill bars these days?
These people are, through their passivity and their unwillingness to uphold the principles they were elected to enforce, complicit in the recklessness and lawlessness of Bush Administration. They should be demanding all of these documents as well as any other "secret memos" that may be floating around. It isn't their choice, it's their obligation. It's what America thought it was voting for when it gave the Democrats a majority in the House and the Senate. And until these representatives start using their power to force some answers and stop these horrible abuses, they have blood on their hands and the suffering these victims on their consciences.
In order to sleep at night perhaps they, too, tell themselves that they're "saving 3,000 American lives"" with their "comity" and their "bipartisanship."
Dream on.
Jane Hamsher blogs at firedoglake.com.
Follow Jane Hamsher on Twitter: www.twitter.com/janehamsher
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
And Why isn't Bush being Impeached on WAR CRIMES? George W. Bush is a war criminal defined by the constitution and the law.
FDL and Raw Story were the only two sites I've seen which covered the story this morning that Sen. Leahy is going to allow the Mukasey confirmation hearings go forth without receiving the subpoenaed e-mails nor any guarantee from Mukasey that he will receive them. Sure, the Republicans are the ones committing the trashing of the Constitution, but the Democrats are doing absolutely nothing to redress it.
Yes, impeach Bush and Cheney and save the Constitution.
I know it's not polite ever to mention 911 conspiracies in public; nor am I a conspiracy buff (I'm more an agnostic about 911). But it's occurred to me just within the last couple days that the absolutely bizarre behavior of the Democratic congress may just end up being the best proof that 911 really was a false-flag operation. That would sure explain why they get positively weak-kneed and ghostly whenever the Bush people dangle the threat of another terrorist attack in front of them. Even though we're apparently less safe today than we were the day before 911, another terrorist attack at any given moment is extremely unlikely. UNLESS 911 was an inside job. In which case another attack could come just about any time - like right after Congress goes on its summer break without having passed the new and improved FISA bill. Or on its Christmas recess without passing the Military Commissions Act. Or any other law designed to gut the constitution just before any other congressional break. I realize this post is about torture - but that's a kind of torture too. Except that, unlike the detainees, congressional Democrats deserve a little torture. Just on general principle.
I have wondered why there has been no resolution to the anthrax attack on Congress myself. Are they under threat by the Administration at all times?
"If you don't let our laws and funding get through, we will show you another anthrax attack." or something similar, is all they have to say. We have contractors (thugs) on secret payrolls. We can make your relatives/
Very scary. Hopefully, I am just paranoid, and we can trust the Administration to not do such things.
Unless one person did it all alone, then it was a CONSPIRACY! The REAL FACTS point out it was a conspiracy by the bu$h/cheney USURPATION et al and israel (israHELL).
WTC7WTF?
I do believe it is time to adjust to the changing circumstances of terrorism. The government needs to have the right to investigate suspected terrorists without being slowed down by the courts. One thing that I am sure of is that the terrorists want Bush out of office more than the liberals here in the US. Their mission will be much easier to accomplish without him there.
"government needs to have the right to investigate suspected terrorists without being slowed down by the courts"
It already has, had, and has had that power. it's called the police power of the state.
What the Government wants is the right t prevent crime. That's very difficult without watching everybody (EVERYBODY ON THE PLANET) all the time. And there's the rub - everybody include you & I, who have rights NOT to be watched until there is probable cause.
That's the huge change. OK - Probable Cause, which means police action are reactive, not proactive.
There have been state with proactive policing. They are called police states, and operate with 10% of the population as informers. We have discovered that these states are a little undesirable.
Now please review your somewhat stupid comments, and discuss proactive policing and reactive policing.
Remember, they're watching you!
Kool aid anyone?
Really? Why is that? It will be easier to accomplish when the country believes in itself again rather than as we are now? Desperate and hopeless. Get a clue. Liberal, conservative, who's in the WH. None of that matters. We've been the boogeyman for a long, long time. We can't quit being the boogeyman until we quit believing IN the boogeyman. A strong, healthy, economically stable America with a robust manufacturing base and an educational system that creates hope for the future is the investment we need for national security. Not a system that requires us to give up the very civil liberties that make America great. Or are you waiting for the day when your "papers" are more important than the cash in your wallet.
I'm sure that the government could perform much more quickly and efficiently in a lot of other areas without being slowed down by the courts too, but that's what the rule of law is. It's there to protect you as well, when the people in power are not the ones you want to be there, so don't be in too big a hurry to scrap it. The rule of law should be one of the things you're fighting to protect. It's one of the things that separates you from them.
Gimme a break. What you and all the rest who take this line are saying is that the logical response to terrorism is a one-party state run by the Republicans. Yeah, let's respond to terrorism by abandoning democracy altogether. Afterall the terrorists are scared stiff of George Bush and the rest of his squad. Yeah, I imagine 6 years after 9/11, Bin Laden is shakin' in his shoes all the while knowing that he's WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE.
Any clear thinking adult would have known the Bush administration was lying about torture when it requested and received from the GOP-led congress a clause in the Military Commissions Act granting retroactive immunity to anyone who already may have performed, or allowed, torture in direct violation of the Geneva Convention and existing US Law.
Those of us who bothered to read that particularly reprehensible piece of legislation, knew then what many Americans are just now learning.
Wake up America!
There's a whole lot more about this bunch of crooks that you still don't know.
Yeah, and Pelosi said that herself! Why on this Earth she won't impeach is just beyond me. But I'm coming to the conclusion that there's a damned good reason for it.
legitgov.o
www.legitg
There _is_ a good reason for it. The sad truth is that most Americans don't give a rat's ass about torture or civil liberties violations as long as they believe it's only happening to "bad guys".
Which is why, despite all the revelations of the last few years, public opinion is still almost 2-to-1 against impeachment.
Pelosi and the other Democratic leaders know that, given the current lack of outrage, any attempt to impeach would be widely perceived as "payback" for the number that DeLay did on Clinton, and would cost them votes in the next election.
While I wholeheartedly agree that the pair and quite a collection of other officials deserve impeachmen
It's frustrating, but I advise patience until after the next election. The Democrats are in a fairly good position, thanks to the publicans being in noxious odor.
In early 2009, perhaps we'll see much-deserved indictments for war crimes for Incurious George and Needle Dick. How I would love to see that pair incarcerated for life (and the next life, and the next . . .).
Did you know that jet fuel will not burn hot enough to melt steel? There is indeed a whole lot more about this bunch of crooks.
Dont misstate the 911 argument.T
I feel it's very important for all Americans to acknowledge the deep disgust they are feeling right now.
It's also very important to acknowledge that most of this stuff has been going on for several decades.
The CIA has trained several dictator-run countries in the art of torture...
We need to snap out of our collective EGO and realize the role America has played in the most atrocious activity aroiund the world for a very long time.
Ahem, kellygrrrl, if it's been going on for decades, doesn't that include under Clinton?
If it does, naschkatze, is that a reason to let the current administration get away with it?
That reasoning says that no one should ever be held accountable for anything that someone else has been able to get away with before them.
They never caught Jack the Ripper, you know...
---------
Logic: the anti-stupid.
Although the beast is righthanded he has a left hand and a right hand.
I've got a secret, too ... the country George Bush invaded and tried to destroy was not Iraq, it was his father's America.
Sad but true...
I'm with you, PoliticalAnimal. Impeach, convict, and remove Cheney and Bush from office. Then have a real investigation of what really went down on September 11, 2001.
Did you know that jet fuel will not burn hot enough to melt steel?
If you read the history of the FBI, they were using many of these techniques in the 1930's on the girlfriends of wanted public enemies and others. Also the practises in the prison system in Texas in the 1920's and 30's were as bad as anything at Guantanamo. Prisoners were routinely executed if they escaped several time in the prison Clyde Barrow was in.
Anybody who will not at the very least protest such things being done in their name on the say-so of a government that has gotten so many other things wrong is no better than the enemies they fight.
The Nixon Doctrine was: "If the President does it, it's not a crime." The Bush Doctrine is: "If the President authorizes it, it's not torture." The Bush wants to use torture has nothing to do with national security. Like all despots, he finds false confessions to crimes of use in terrorizing the populace into submission.
I've had a long, slow scream inside of me ever since I found out that Amerika tortures.
I'm 59 and I am wondering, Where is everybody else? Where are the organizers?
I'm not an organizer, but I've told my 20 year old daughter that the time may come when I'm living in a tent, in a tent city protesting -- or will it be in a concentration camp?
Man I hear you on that slow scream.
I get the feeling I'm going die on some baricade
trying to regain America.
Cursing the Junta.
"I get the feeling I'm going die on some baricade (sic)"
Wow. If true (that you think it), very sad; however, I guess that is America (Bush's America)--no longer the land of the free, home of the brave. Now, another failed nation-state.
After about the sixth lie from bush concerning the warrantless wiretapping of Americans, I not only quit believing anything he (or anyone in his party) said, I also went and changed my voter affiliation from republican to Independent.
Why would anyone want to belong to a party where you cannot believe the spokesman?
When I read about this first thing this morning I was so upset that I still can't find the words.
Anybody know anywhere that sells "I'm ashamed of my country" bumper stickers?
if you read Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" you will have nightmares and a severe feeling of nauseating unease all day long.
I can't even fine the words to tell how contemptuous I find this democratic congress. They are so sure they won't be unseated that they don't care what the people want, what the constitution or the rule of law demands.
If we can't trust them "to uphold the principles they were elected to enforce" now what makes anyone think they will uphold them later?
Difficult as it is we need another viable political party.
A third political party is a good idea, but it would take time we don't have. How about all Dems and disgruntled Repubs switch to Independent? Candidates can still run in their present parties, but they would be compelled to listen to WE THE PEOPLE because they could no longer assume we will vote for them because of affiliation.
PS. It would change the character of the 'polls' everyone is so fond of referencing as well. Who would be ahead in the Dem party if they didn't have a clue who to call for the Dem stats?
Consider the Unity '08 party.
We really don't need another political party. Just think about not voting for any incumbent ever again. In three election cycles we could be rid of every social parisite in D. C. The new ones coming in would not have time to get on corporate payrolls [reelection funds]. It would work unless we get martial law in the next few months. Think about it please....
We are Americans, and in our America we do not torture, we do not imprison people without charge or legal remedy, we do not tap people’s phones and emails without a court order, and above all we do not give any President unchecked power.
I pledge to fight to protect and defend the Constitution from assault by any President.
This should be the pledge from every American.
Rascalitis, Go govtrack.u
What is HR 1022? Details, please???
Impeachment Supported by Majorities of Many Groups
Responses to the Zogby poll varied by political party affiliation: 66% of Democrats favored impeachment, as did 59% of Independents, and even 23% of Republicans. By ideology, impeachment was supported by Progressives (90%), Libertarians (71%), Liberals (65%), and Moderates (58%), but not by Conservatives (33%) or Very Conservatives (28%).
Responses also varied by age, sex, race, and religion. 74% of those 18-29 favored impeachment, 47% of those 31-49, 49% of those 50-64, and 40% of those over 65. 55% of women favored impeachment, compared to 49% of men. Among African Americans, 75% favored impeachment, as did 56% of Hispanics and 47% of whites. Majorities of Catholics, Jews, and Others favored impeachment, while 44% of Protestants and 38% of Born Again Christians did so.
Majorities favored impeachment in every region: the East (54%), South (53%) and West (52%), and Central states (50%). In large cities, 56% support impeachment; in small cities, 58%; in suburbs, 46%; in rural areas, 46%.
Or maybe he's only another BRAIN DEAD rethug living in the past (re:2 to 1 AGAINST impeachment):
Support for Clinton Impeachment Was Much Lower
In August and September of 1998, 16 major polls asked about impeaching President Clinton http://dem
When I swore
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;"
I didn't expect it would be the President and Vice-President.
I seem to living in a different America.
Leahy always does next to nothing. His ineffectiveness enables the Bush crowd and blocks any hope for reform. I hope he retires.
I get the feeling that Schumer The Hoodwinked is the de facto chairman of that committee anyway, and he is promoting Mukasey's nomination. I don't think things will get any better under Chuckie.
I have the opposite opinion of Leahy. As far as I can see, he's got good principles on the issues of the Iraq war and civil liberties, and does a pretty good job as chair of the Judiciary Committee. If all of the Democratic senators were more like him, we wouldn't have problems with a secret government.
I think we should not approve any thing more. The vote approving Petreaus was apparently a vote confirming anything he would later say. When congress authorized Bush to use force upon certain conditions it became a blank check. this is what they always argue. We should assume approving any nominee is a blank check. Make Bush appoint a democrat or no go. Zero tolerance.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
