« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
The Washington Post digs deeper into that Justice Department Inspector General's report on the FBI role in detainee interrogations, specifically the contentious high-level Administration disputes over torture:
Two major policy splits are highlighted in the report's account of the long to-and-fro over the tactics. One reflected a clash of cultures between the experienced interrogators at the FBI who were looking to prosecute terrorism crimes, and military and CIA officials who were seeking rapid information about al-Qaeda and were willing to push legal boundaries to do it. The report shows that FBI agents appeared more concerned about the long view, while others wanted detainees to break immediately in the panicked days after Sept. 11, 2001.
The IG report reveals that the FBI was so concerned about the techniques being used that agents began collecting allegations of abuse and placing them in a "war crimes file." Although, as we've previously noted, the FBI ultimately took a hands-off approach to torture, and the file was soon closed with no action taken.
The usual characters -- Addington, Yoo, Ashcroft -- played a role, but the report reveals some new players, mid-level officials who opposed the torture regimen:
Bruce C. Swartz, a criminal division deputy in charge of international issues, repeatedly questioned the effectiveness of harsh interrogation tactics at White House meetings of a special group formed to decide detainee matters, with representatives present from the Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA. ...Besides Swartz, the others depicted as raising sustained objections are then-FBI assistant general counsel Marion "Spike" Bowman, who documented his concerns in written reports, and Pasquale D'Amuro, then the bureau's assistant director for counterterrorism. Michael Chertoff, who was then assistant attorney general in charge of the criminal division, raised concerns in November 2002 about the effectiveness of the military's methods, although he said later he did not recall hearing assertions that they were illegal.
But with the pressure for harsh interrogation tactics coming from the very highest levels of government, the objections of mid-level officials were barely speed bumps on the road to torture as official U.S. policy.
Josh
Zachary
Can we please begin the Impeachment hearings soon?
I can think of no reason not to start any later than November 5, 2008. The elections will be over. There will be no threat of a Republican President being inaugurated in January. Speaker Pelosi can talk about splitting the country all she wants, but if Bush & Cheney are not impeached, Bush will pardon everyone in his administration, the telecoms, and anyone who could possibly testify against him.
To save our nation, Impeachment must be back on the table November 5, 2008.
ITMFA
May 22, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Impeachment would be a political move only, as removal would not happen under a fairly evenly divided Congress. Bush and the Republican Brand are already in the toilet politically. Why hand them the argument that it is Democrats stalling and playing politics?
May 22, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with your statement that impeachment would be a political move only. We all understand with the congressional tallies right now that impeachment wouldn't actually succeed but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. They can argue all they want that impeachment is democrats "playing politics" but if they did impeach it would be a sign of the Democrats actually standing up for the principle of the rule of law. We all need to stand up and demand accountability from our political leaders and this would a great step.
May 22, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, the time for this debate in Congress has passed. The country still needs to have it, granted, but it will now shift to the courts. There simply isn't time left in this Congressional session.
Besides, every word uttered by this criminal enterpise posing as a presidency is now evidence. Look for war crimes indictments post Jan 2009 when pardons are much less likely.
In fact, you may see a trial balloon floated later this year to see how fast the pardon pen comes out, and to get a key player to talk under this tacit immunity.
America still needs to debate going senslessly into war, and using war as our foreign policy. War crimes trials are now the vehicle for this. Impeachment can only remove W from office. War crimes trials are called for, and impeachment is not required for that.
We must demand trials until we are hoarse, or we doom future presidents into making the same ghastly mistakes. It will be up to the next DoJ.
And it falls upon us to make sure they do it.
Pax,
M.
May 22, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you saying that this is why the Democrats have continued to say, "impeachment is off the table" ? It makes sense, from a purely political animal point of view. "We would look bad" seems to prevent good men from doing nothing, to paraphrase Edmund Burke.
To be sure, fear is the most potent weapon of the bully, whether evil or incompetent.
May 22, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe, in a sense, it would be only political. But the political arguably matters quite a lot: what we need, coming out of this dark period, is a clear statement that the tactics of the Bush Administration are unacceptable. This would be a way to go about saying that the conduct we've seen in Bagram, then Gitmo, then a brig off the coast of Virginia (or somewhere) violates the constitution.
Maybe it's not just political, though. Just as there are no rights without remedies, as the lawyers say, there are no bright lines without penalties for crossing them. The disincentive of possible impeachment hearings would do that. Of course, more effective would be strong new laws clarifying what we think is acceptable.
June 16, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have never understood the torture stuff. They didn't need to do it, why did they break so many laws and get into such a quagmire? Did they want to look tuff, and be the first ever Torture Presidency?
Did they really wet their beds every night as they trembled in fear of where AQ was going to strike next and kill their kids, so terrified that they thought torture was the only way to make us safe?
Did they really think they could torture out enough evidence to paper over their flimsy GoToWar arguments?
Were they always striving to turn it into american law, ok to torture, esp. if we can start calling our own citizens terrrrrsts, and thus complete the Nazi Police state?
I never saw the upside here. Didn't make them rich, didn't really take american taxpayer money and stuff it into BigBusiness pockets, no oil, no good evidence was produced, made them look like assholes, did not make us safer or even lend credence to keeping us safer....so why did they do it?
May 22, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that it's established fact that :
1) US tortures routinely - admitted by the current president
2) ALL of his senior advisers were in on the planning of the torture and approved
3) It was and is part of the dubya/cheeny strategy to impose martial law in the us by Jan. 2009
Isn't it time, as the planes are taking off from Andrews with chimpy's administration in them headed to the Hague for their war crimes trials, that we started asking the following question:
Who trained the people doing the interrogations?? What sort of maniacs do this kind of thing to other humans?? Should they be punished even more severely? Are the interrogators liable??
May 22, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who trained them? Well there was once a place called the School of the Americas if I remember correctly.
May 22, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get ready for the most unbelievable string of pardons to come out of the White House before Bush's term is over. The most unpopular President in modern history, the worst President in modern history, will use the power of the pardon to flip the bird to the country one final time.
Thanks for an unforgettable and unforgivable 8 years, W. I hope the country has learned something from this.
May 22, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once they've been pardoned, they no longer can use the fifth amendment to remain silent when asked questions under oath.
Think about the stream of public hearings this would permit. If you think the Republican brand is in the gutter now, consider such hearings for six months or so. And it really needs to be done.
May 22, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is why indictments must wait until post Jan 2009.
May 22, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
One has to be tried and convicted before there is a need for a pardon. Who are you suggesting has been convicted that Bush can pardon?
You can't pardon in advance and he will only be pres until Jan 09.
May 23, 2008 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
They torture because they can. It's a demonstration of Bush's administration powers. Torture is an ancient practice to generate fear in your enemies. It's not really a question of what information they yielded, it's a question of how well did they intimidate the enemy (the rest of the Middle East population perceived as a threat to the administration). That's always been the real purpose of torture.
May 22, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think another purpose is to demonstrate how powerful they are. That's a separate goal from merely intimidating an enemy, a perceived enemy or a potential enemy.
May 22, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
To demonstrate how powerful they are to themselves as well? The whole crew does seem to have issues.
Beyond that of course torture instills fear into any potential adversaries, domestic or foreign.
May 22, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pissing off the judiciary was the huge mistake. Tampering with U.S. attorneys will haunt these folks for the rest of their lives. They might have gotten away with it otherwise.
Consider: W, Cheney, and Co. cannot set foot in Vermont without being arrested for war crimes. Ditto, an increasing number of other countries. As more comes out the noose will tighten. This will prove intolerable, and W will be a private citizen cheered by no one.
There will be no esscape, so long as indictments come post Jan 2009.
Pax,
M.
May 22, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lets dig deeper....
Not to get off topic, but I watched a clip of HBO's new flick coming out this Sunday regarding the recount in Florida - called "Recount." But something/someone jumped out at me who was in the film..."Mr. John Bolton" was in one of the clips in the background...It seems he was rewarded for putting Bush in office during this time, maybe, but it was odd to see after that point he was appointed Ambassador to Iraq...in which he screwed that up and so much more.
Just a note of wonder!
May 22, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, it only makes sense in the context of the deliberate disassembly of govt for the purpose of personal enrichment.
Trying to disassemble U.S. attorneys is what will cost them.
May 22, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Expect Cheney to move to Dubai - where Halliburton is now headquartered and W to move to Paraguay - where the Bush family has purchased a huge ranch.
Do either of these countries have extradition treaties with the Netherlands (The Hague)?
May 22, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think as long as we known where they are...However, if we don't..thats another story!
Remember, the trials in Hague with the Germans, it took many years to try and find all the players, but most got brought back to Hague and those who didn't died of old age!
May 22, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is unrealistic to suppose the Bush will be impeached. I also think it is unlikely that any of our war criminals will be indicted (much less convicted) in the United States.
Incidentally, the World Court (in The Hague) concerns disputes between nations. The International Criminal Court--in which Milosevic was brought to justice--has jurisdiction over individual war crimes. We are not a party to the ICC. The United States should join as promptly as possible.
The ICC is a far better solution that hoping for impeachment or eventual prosecution of our war criminals under US domestic law: (1) Joining the ICC would help repair our standing in the world as respectful of the rule of law as a general principle in human affairs. (2) It is far more likely that current US war criminals would actually been indicted in an international venue. (3) The possibility of individual accountability could act as potential deterrent for future US war criminals.
If US war criminals escape to Dubai or Paraguay or some other non-extradition land to avoid trial and punishment, it will nevertheless be a form of luxurious imprisonment for the indicted men. (And women--let's not forget Rice's tenure as NSC director.) At least they will be denied safety, lucrative speaking fees, and comfortable retirement in the United States.
May 22, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The country needs truth and reconciliation. They are war criminals. Let's wait until they're unelected for real, rip their veins out and send them in shackles to the Hague.
May 22, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, ok, then let's join the International Criminal Court ASAP and deal with them there.
May 22, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I disagree with your statement that impeachment would be a political move only. We all understand with the congressional tallies right now that impeachment wouldn't actually succeed but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. They can argue all they want that impeachment is democrats "playing politics" but if they did impeach it would be a sign of the Democrats actually standing up for the principle of the rule of law. We all need to stand up and demand accountability from our political leaders and this would a great step.
"Posted by singfoom"
Agreed. As for the politics part of it: push come to shove, will the Republicans be willing to oppose impeachment? If so: Make my year.
The evidence coming out now is piling up; Bushit's polls are record low: 23 per cent. Many of those who still support torture will learn soon enough that it is a war crime, that it cannot be made legal, and that effort to make it legal is also illegal.
And don't give the Bushit criminal enterprise any excuses -- including that of being "panicked" as result of 9/11. They weren't "panicked" by "bin Laden Determined to Strike Within US".
Did they know what they were doing was illegal? Yes. Did they know the evidence derived from torture would be inadmissable in court? Yes. Did they care whether they could get convictions? Only as a rigged political agenda.
As for "truth and reconciliation: first, prosecution and conviction. Then we can sit around and talk about "trught and reconciliation" while these traitors cool their heels in prison awaiting "rendition" to the Hague for the fair trials they refused everyone else.
As for impeachment: one doesn't "hope" for it; one DEMANDS it.
May 22, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Unfortunately, the time for this debate in Congress has passed. The country still needs to have it, granted, but it will now shift to the courts. There simply isn't time left in this Congressional session."
Bullshit jellyfish whining. The Congressional session can be extended if necessary.
Why do assholes who claim to be patriots constantly whine about impeachment -- but then throw up reasons why [wetting panties] we "can't" impeach.
Gad, I'm sick of such lily-livered pseudo-Americans.
May 22, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your childish name-calling will not produce the votes in this Senate needed to convict.
May 22, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Posted this on another thread, but it applies here as well:
IF "(t)he IG report reveals that the FBI was so concerned about the techniques being used that agents began collecting allegations of abuse and placing them in a 'war crimes file'...
...and "the file was soon closed with no action taken"...
...then where is that file now?
May 22, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
He can't pre-pardon them from future prosecution, can he? Maybe it would be better to wait until Bush is out of office and then round them up.
May 22, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ayuh, indictments in Feb 2009. There can be no pardon of future indictments.
May 22, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Gerald Ford pardon Dick Nixon before he had been indicted for anything?
As long as we're on the subject...Why should the President have unlimited pardon power in the first place--with no "conflict of interest" restrictions?
May 22, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's alot worse.
FBI HQ ordered SIOUX FALLS, SD, COUNTER INTEL SPECIAL AGENT STEVEN PLUTA to join an illegal unconstitutional debriefing of me, THOMAS S. BEAN.
This debriefing was done with AN NSA MIND CONTROL CHIP inserted in my skull.
PLUTA ran a "subliminal debriefing" of a guy who recently signed a ten page memo to SEN GRASSLEY AT US SEN JUD COMM, and also...TENDERED UNDER PENALTY OF PROSECUTION, A 47 PAGE US DOJ OIG/FBI OPR COMPLAINT.
If you sign a complaint and talk to Congress...you GET TORTURED AND HARASSED, AND CHIPPED BY FBI HQ.
THAT IS MY TESTIMONY...that the punks at US HOUSE JUD COMM and Sen Jud Comm know about, have confirmed, and REFUSE TO INVESTIGATE WITH A SUBPOENA SEEKING THOMAS S. BEAN'S TESTIMONY?
My x rays...showed the chip.
My x rays...were illegally seized by FBI?
Without x rays...and without doctors willing to continue a course of medical care, I AM STILL CHIPPED, STILL PROGRAMMED...AND STILL PART OF THE DOD'S SCHOOL SHOOTERS ON A SHELF PROGRAM.
Don't you guys know...THE DOD DOES THE SCHOOL SHOOTINGS USING MIND CONTROL, CHIPPING PEOPLE, AND TORTURING US CITIZENS IN THEIR OWN HOMES?
An FBI witness named DR. MARK GORDON was fried and tortured in his own home...while he worked for Minneapolis FBI?
BOB MUELLER DID NOTHING ABOUT making an arrest for TAMPERING WITH AN FBI WITNESS? OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?
MUELLER AND DEMOCRATS never once "got this story out in the open" and continue to "obstruct justice by doing nothing"?
May 27, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink