« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Focus Shifting To Evidence Bushies Ordered Torture To Boost Case For Iraq War
At last, the torture debate looks to be heading toward what's been the big question lurking in the background all along: was the Bush administration using torture in large part to make a political case for the invasion of Iraq?
Writing on The Daily Beast, former NBC producer Robert Windrem reports that in April 2003, Dick Cheney's office suggested that interrogators waterboard an Iraqi detainee who was suspected of having knowledge of a link between Saddam and al Qaeda.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse was questioned on the issue today in two TV interviews. Speaking to CNN, Whitehouse allowed: "I have heard that to be true." To MSNBC, he noted that there was additional evidence of this in the Senate Armed Services committee report, and from Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell. "This thing is just getting deeper and deeper," said Whitehouse, noting that if it were true, it would significantly bolster the case for prosecutions.
And MSNBC's Chris Matthews also picked up on the issue this evening, as did Ed Schultz of the same network.
So let's look at the evidence that's emerged.
In a blog post today, Wilkerson wrote:
What I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002 -- well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion -- its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa'ida.
We spoke to Wilkerson this afternoon to get a bit more context for that information. He told us that he was asked by Colin Powell in April 2004, when Powell ran the State Department, to conduct a wide-ranging investigation of the torture program. Powell, he said, had just learned that the Abu Ghraib photos were going to come out, and wanted a comprehensive view of what was going on.
Wilkerson's probe continued after he and Powell left office. In 2005 he formed an informal working group made up of retired military officers and human rights activists. He was motivated, he said, by a desire to keep the armed services -- an institution he had served in for much of his life and revered -- from getting embroiled in the torture controversy. He's also working on a forthcoming book -- though he said, half-jokingly, that he's considering delaying publication until after Powell has died, because in places he's critical of his former boss.
Wilkerson said that his information about torture being used to find a Saddam-Qaeda link came from people concerned to "defend the integrity" of the CIA. He said that according to these people, outside contractors, rather than CIA personnel, were used for these interrogations -- something that jibes with what we already know.
There's certainly no love lost between Wilkerson and Cheney. Explaining Cheney's recent outspokenness on the torture issue, Wilkerson told us: "Cheney is now on a personal ego-inspired trip. He cares not about his party. He cares not about his country. He cares only about being justified. And that is dangerous territory."
But the jist of Wilkerson's claims has already been formally reported last month, by McClatchy, based on the Senate Armed Services committee report, and its own interviews:
A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the interrogation issue said that Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld demanded that the interrogators find evidence of al Qaida-Iraq collaboration."There were two reasons why these interrogations were so persistent, and why extreme methods were used," the former senior intelligence official said on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity.
"The main one is that everyone was worried about some kind of follow-up attack (after 9/11). But for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there."
...
A former U.S. Army psychiatrist, Maj. Charles Burney, told Army investigators in 2006 that interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility were under "pressure" to produce evidence of ties between al Qaida and Iraq.
"While we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al Qaida and Iraq and we were not successful in establishing a link between al Qaida and Iraq," Burney told staff of the Army Inspector General. "The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link . . . there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results."
In other words, Windrem's report today hardly comes out of the blue. In fact, the mounting evidence that the administration explicitly used torture to make a political case for the war in Iraq is only the latest reason why we need a full investigation of this whole dirty business.
Josh
Zachary
Emptywheel has some thoughts about all of this here:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/14/the-911-commission-and-torture/
And here:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/14/wilkerson-al-libis-waterboarding/
May 14, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it's said once, it should be said a thousand times: Special Prosecutor Now.
May 14, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cosign!
May 14, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto
May 14, 2009 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes
May 15, 2009 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
1) There appears to be an abundance of requests and replies for President Barack Obama (and within his verbal and written Pledges and Promises!!) to immediately allow and provide for the Transparency!! and with the proper and forthright 'Oversight and Accountability' to these many seemingly concurring and consistent 'Smoking Gun' Found!! Allegations!!!!
2) Or, immediately be subject to the US Congress Judicary, Chairman John Conyers, 'Presidential Powers and Its Limitations'!! 'Impeachment Hearings'!! of 8/2008 and so-called and supposedly ongoing as in the Testimony!! it was clearly stated that these where the most important Hearings within recent memories of well stated and implied 30 to 50+ Years!!
Thank you for your time and consideration.
May 14, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, what's with all the exclamations? Are you advertising something?
May 14, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
My hopes are and as I have previously mentioned,
1) Torture is a high crime and inisidious Inhumane Act and also within a Impeachable 'High Crime and Misdemeanor' offense and also irrespective of any alleged illegal//legal//illegal so-called application.
2) Torture is also in violation of all our US Laws, Rules and Regulations. Also, in violation of all our legal and law binding Domestic and International Treaties ecetra.
Lets end the Bush//Obama Administration!!
Lets not continue to proceed with the Obama//Bush//Cheney Law that equals 'No Rights', 'No Access to any proper court of Law', 'No Access to Attorneys//Lawyers' and the continuing of these maniacal, inisidious, horrific inhumane practices, procedures and horrific illegal so-called applications.
Again, today is a good day and an appropriate time for the 'Change We Can Believe In'.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
May 14, 2009 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should and could also read;
My and/or our Concerns and Hopes and as I have previously mentioned;
May 14, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I think that I agree with your points 1 and 2, though have no idea what you are talking about with your "alleged illegal//legal//illegal so-called application." What's with your "/"s everywhere? If you write simply and plainly, then others, besides yourself, will understand what you mean.
I have no idea what you mean about ending the "Bush/Obama Administration", as they are separate administrations.
And this paragraph:
makes little sense to me. "Obama//Bush//Cheney Law"? Huh?!?
I do agree that torture is horrific and inhumane, so I think we're on the same page. I think.
May 14, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry if I seem like an ass. It's been a long day and when I'm crabby, something confusing to me makes me more so.
May 14, 2009 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, my apologies and Thank you for your critique. Also, thank you for your patience and tolerance from my exasperations and frustartions.
This may assist in more clear expression within several concerns surrounding the many issues of Torture, the proper and forthright endeavors towards the interpretation of Law(s) and illegal War(s) allegations, ecetra;
From the President Bush, Senator Obama Administration Practices and Policies to the President Obama, Former President Bush and Former Vice President Cheney, et all, Policies and Practices appear, in law, to be Similar and Identical and may be even worse and/or with additional fraud, waste and abuse.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
May 15, 2009 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I forgot to mention;
.....fraud, waste and abuse and with the many, including Taxpayer, Financial Funding Allocations, thereof.
May 15, 2009 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
My apologies.
In my view, President Obama could easily live up to his Verbal and Written Pledges and Promises and has to this date, has not.
From the recent notable Sunday Morning News, VP Cheney Interview that also appeared at least to be self-incriminating and also advocated for no change and the continuing of these policies and practices and in substaintial detail.
I believe my allegations are brief as possible and correct. I began writing a direct reply to your concerns, although it became to lenghty.
In my view and which I believe is correct, it is the same pack of hoodwinking deceipt, lies and/or fraud and corruption and without the necessary and applicable faith and hope for the well promised and advertised for the 'We the People' 'Change We Can Believe In'.
Again, my apolgies for any offense as that is not my intention and any additional frustrations and exasperations that my blog comment replies may have caused.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
May 14, 2009 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, there wasn't an offense, I was just trying to figure out what you were trying to say. Later on!
May 15, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your friend is just trying to spread the blame around as far as possible - Cheney and Rumsfeld aren't responsible, it was just a "collective failure."
Special prosecutors are assigned by Congressional Committees of some sort, aren't they? Is there any role that the Justice Department plays? Maybe these guys know:
http://www.pogo.org/
May 19, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reaction among the likes of Boehner and Lieberman to the Pelosi press conference was primarily spluttering dismissal: nothing to see here! She can't be trusted! In other words, completely beside the point. She couldn't point to a letter she'd written, as did Harman and Jello Jay. Yet she was convincing in making her case - such as it was. The ball's in the CIA's court as to whether they want to release those briefing docs to try to prove her wrong. The more important element here is that the Speaker neutered the diversionary coverage of her role. The media's already moving on to the Wilkerson allegations. And that's not a happy development for the torture folks.
May 14, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
And who was she going to complain to, the CIA? The president? The Senate? The NY Times who refused to run the domestic spying story in 2004?
May 14, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Boner's big argument is "why didn't you stop us from doing something illegal and ineffective?"
May 14, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely!
Worst case, she was an accessory after the fact. That still implicates Cheney and his dummy in felonies. Keep talking, Boehner. Really, really nail the "Pelosi is a criminal too" argument.
May 14, 2009 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'll have to provide EVIDENCE that Pelosi is an "accessory after the fact". Merely smearing her isn't sufficient.
May 15, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Cheney and Rumsfeld knew there were NO links between Saddam and Al Quaeda, because they set up their Office of Special Plans to create phony intelligence. They had guys like Michael Ledeen working their Italian spy friends to bring in bogus intelligence from freaks like Curveball. They all knew, all along, that the whole thing was a crock, a convenient excuse for invasion. Like the Downing Street memos said, the intelligence was being fixed around the goal, not vice versa.
So why did they torture all these people so ruthlessly and sadistically? Were they just looking for more actionable scraps of information that they could massage into plausible half-truths for public consumption?
Or was this a case where the gullible underlings who actually ran the torture programs didn't know it was all a crock, so they went hell for leather trying to please their bosses? You can't imagine Cheney telling his goons to ease up a bit, can you?
Sick stuff all round.
May 14, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was no link because Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden had only one thing in common: they were mutual ENEMIES.
That is the only "link" -- and that was LOUDLY in the public domain for five years before the Bushit criminal enterprise stole and bullied its way into office.
May 15, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe Conason writing on Salon comes to a similar conclusion:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/05/14/cheney/print.html
May 14, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. Looks like a subscription is required. HOWEVER, if you hit your browser's back button when you get to the pre-login page, it seems to take you to the Conason article anyway. Good luck!
May 14, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember, the torture techniques used by the bushies were developed specifically to generate FALSE confessions, not to discover truths. The techniques were used since at least the Spanish Inquisition and some date back much further. SERE was specifically designed to enable pilots captured by the Red Army to resist making false confessions of war crimes and anti-American statements.
Someone should ask John McCain how effective the torture he experienced was at getting him to reveal confidential information, compared to getting him to make false statements, which were used as propaganda.
May 14, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
... in addition to the dishrack, household cushions, and the dreaded comfy chair!
Remember, NObody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
May 14, 2009 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The torture techniques were experiments! And experimenting is a war crime!
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2009/05/experimentation-is-am.php
May 14, 2009 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
They've called them everything BUT torture in effort to avoid the issue. That's the only reason they called them "experiments" -- it SOUNDS harmless.
They weren't "experiments"; they were INTENDED to cause harm.
May 15, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain will lie, since he provided classified information VOLUNTARILY -- such as the fact that he was the son of an admiral. Which worked to get him special treatment.
His fellow POWs say so.
May 15, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I've noted before, the torture was used NOT to "gather evidence" about a supposed Iraq/al Queda link, it was used to create the intelligence that would then provide a means of manufacturing consent of Congress and the American people to grant tacit acceptance of their pre-determined plan to attack Iraq. That the information obtained through torture was going to be suspect was not relevant to the consideration of creating "actionable intelligence" (i.e. cover). They knew the evidence would be a lie, but even so, it would serve to open a path for the attack and simultaneously serve to protect the "principles" after the truth emerged. (e.g. the Weapons of Mass Destruction)--killing two birds with one stone, so to speak.
May 14, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
They KNEW there were no WMDs. Recall this sequence:
1. Bushit accused Saddam Hussein of refusing to allow the inspectors "in" -- in fact, they'd been in Iraq, on the ground, and inspecting, for 8 years. See Scott Ritter.
2. He next told the inspectors to get out of Iraq, because the bombs were going to begin falling.
3. He subsequently said that Saddam Hussein threw the inspectors out.
May 15, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh. Even Garrison Keillor is jumping on the Cheney bandwagon:
May 14, 2009 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
This man needs prison! Once there, he can have all the buddies he wants.
May 14, 2009 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
None of this should be in the least surprising to the studious observer of the Bush Administration, except insofar as the elites may finally be realizing that someone needs to go down for this. I suspect that Pelosi may be a bitch that Cheney and his present fixer Rover will ultimately regret crossing. Cheney must face The Hague.
May 14, 2009 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a VERY fruitful line of inquiry. I think it's all starting to come together now. Thanks TPM
May 14, 2009 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It was all about finding a way to do it"
-Paul O'Neill, about the run-up to the Iraq war
May 14, 2009 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it just me or is Cheney starting to remind you of the serial killers who start taunting the press hoping to be caught? It's all become for "Zodiac".
May 15, 2009 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
My thoughts exactly.
May 15, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're being conned. They are going to put it out there that torture is a crime IF (and only if) it was done to get that evidence (but not if it was to extract information about an imminent threat). This moves the debate off of whether torture is acceptable and move it into WHEN it is acceptable and when it isn't. That's what Bush, Cheney and Obama want.
THEN, of course, investigators will be unable to prove the link between torture and getting evidence of Iraq and Al Qaeda working together. And so, voila! No crimes were committed.
May 15, 2009 3:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
[[They are going to put it out there that torture is a crime IF (and only if) it was done to get that evidence (but not if it was to extract information about an imminent threat)]]
Good luck to them with that. The Convention Against Torture is admirably clear:
"Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession ..."
Doesn't matter WHY they wanted information, no matter how admirable and public-spirited their motive(s) might have been. It's torture, and it's a crime. If this ever gets before an even half-bright, half-honest judge or jury -- still a big "if," I'll grant -- they're screwed.
May 15, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please pay attention. The dickman had 2 reasons: 1) force people to make up stories that fit his script
2) force people that know the truth to shut up
Have been saying this for years.
The only way his world works is scare people to say lies or scare people to say nothing
Why has eveyone missed this.
The whole off-shore prison/mistreatment/whatever although true is fear enough itself to keep most from stepping out of line.
The dickman just keeps on stroking.Amazing no one has yet asked for the truth. Amazing.
Why do they still call news people reporters? What do they report?
Amazing.
May 15, 2009 3:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's count up all the Republican lies about detentions and torture.
We didn’t waterboard anybody. Wrong.
Waterboarding isn’t torture. Wrong.
We didn’t break the law. Wrong. Title 18 of the U.S. Code, the UCMJ, the Geneva Convention….Even Reagan threw cops in jail for waterboarding prisoners.
The purpose of the torture was to prevent terror attacks. Nope. Several sources have established that the purpose was to prove a link between Iraq and terrorism in time for the 2002 elections.
The torture program actually did stop attacks, including a plot against LA. Already debunked.
Stopping the torture program puts us at risk. Wrong. Why did the Bush gang stop it in 2004, then?
Pelosi knew about the whole thing. Nope. That was already shot down by the CIA and by other lawmakers who were also briefed. Also, the CIA itself lied about the briefings on the interrogations. Also, Bush's crimes are not extenuated by anybody he claims he told about it.
Pelosi could have stopped the torture program. Wrong: the Bush gang made clear time after time that they intended to ignore any Congressional input with respect to any issue which, in their view, impinged on national security. And she didn’t know anyway.
The torture program is justified under the doctrine of protecting sources and methods. Even Bob Barr shot that one down.
Cheney’s effort to defend torture is on the same moral level as Gore’s effort to combat global warming. Um, yeah.
Stopping the torture means we’re not supporting our troops. Nope. Actually the torture program itself is endangering our troops, as our generals confirmed.
Talking about this torture program makes America look bad and fosters terrorism. No, lying and concealing makes us look bad.
The torture proved the Iraq-terror link. Nope. The guys who stated that, under torture, later admitted they lied – just before one mysteriously died in prison.
Those Guantanamo prisoners are the worst of the worst. Um, no. Most were grabbed off the street by bounty hunters who had no idea who they were grabbing – if there were evidence against them, Bush would have taken them to court.
There isn’t any exculpatory evidence against these guys. Wrong – Bush illegally hid it.
The Gitmo prisoners must stay there because bringing them into the U.S. is too dangerous. Nope. You know how many really dangerous prisoners we already have?
And most of these lies, by Republicans who worked for the Bush Administration, were debunked by…. Republicans who worked for the Bush Administration.
And this is just what we've caught them at, since the grownups took over in January.
When a group of people tells you one proven lie on a topic, you start to disbelieve them just a bit. But sixteen, and counting?
There's more ammo at http://hellodollyllama.blogspot.com/
May 15, 2009 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant Dolly. Can't tell you how many dummies are on Facebook trying to use the lame arguments you debunk. Most of them are Evangelicals who live in the South. Maybe they should slap a "Who would Jesus torture?" bumper sticker on the back of their SUV.
May 15, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
These people belong in jail. Seeing Cheney on all the talk shows makes me want to hurl.
What if a good citizen followed him around and then made a citizen's arrest?
May 15, 2009 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, we're all reviled NOW, but where was the outrage when it was actually happening?? Abu Graib broke years ago, where was the clamor to get to the bottom of it? Where was Mdm Speaker??? Where were the Dems? Where were we?
And is THIS still going on???
May 15, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Soory, can't keep my mouth shut on this one: has anyone heard the word distracted?
Ya know? Look....it's over here! Not over there.
None of this is new.
All this should have been news!
gopthingys' iq is droooooooped but media should at least have put questions marks at the end of of each line.Like huh? This isn't what's really happening......why are they saying things that don't make sense?
Is this a big one for "reporters"? Was there a gun at their heads? Was the entire media circus recruiter system low on iq as a plan? Or the sewage was so .... whatever even being nearby caused poor performance and low moral value?
Yeah, go after everyone but really gang, how can you watch/read/hear media and let your mind belong to them? And then buy what they sell too!
Someone needs to make everyone eat 10 cheesburgers at one time so they understand that may not be fun.
More later.
Think back to what had you distracted when the main event was right in your face?
May 15, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's time for Cheney to resume his position with Haliburton. Remember they moved to Dubai, after receiving a no bid contract from Cheney. By the way Dubai has no extradition treaty with the USA. Clever guy, very clever.
May 15, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
One word: Rendition!
May 15, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very dissapointing that our elected officials, especially within the Democratic Party, has now taken such a different approach in the discussions of Torture and the previous administrations corruption and illegal activities.
I am glad to see Cheney in the media (especially places other than foxnews) and is helping keeping the torture debate front and center.
We need to continue to keep the pressure on the President and Congress to do as we voted for. Change.
May 15, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to chime in a bit late without reading all the comments:
It doesn't make a legal difference whether the goal was chasing down bin Laden or finding connections to Iraq -- in neither case was outright torture "authorized" or justified by the memos I've heard about or seen. There is no defense of necessity since torture was always merely an option. There is no defense of self-defense since there was no evidence of imminent threat. Whether the goal was info about bin Laden or info about Iraq, again.
People like to say this was about getting false confessions. I think that's a red herring and irrelevant to the legal question.
That said, it's not just a legal issue. It's a political and moral issue, too. And of course we're assuming here that it WAS torture and the the torture which occurred WAS authorized at the highest level.
I take it as fact that some torture occurred somewhere. But I don't take it as fact that all harsh interrogations were torture nor that all were authorized at the highest level. I believe that there were some "bad apples". Maybe some of them got a raw deal, maybe not. But the "bad apples" we know about are far from the whole story and they might be found at higher levels than has been officially admitted/determined, including the White House.
What strikes me is the vast amount of churning going on. Cheney is certainly getting his largely one-sided day in court, the court of MSM driven public opinion. And opposing pundits are generating ridicule and the very occasional good counterpoint. Of course neither "side" is really talking to the other, it's theatre when it isn't just agenda pushing. Maybe it only looks "vast" because I cannot see the forest for the trees and I'm not used to following such stuff this closely. I'd like to see some good quality polls on how his performance is going over in the populace at large.
May 15, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "bad apples" are those who stole and bullied their way into office in 2000: the Bushit criminal enterprise.
As for whether they tortured: according to the legal definition they DID.
Cheney ADMITS waterboarding -- which is without question TORTURE.
As well, Cheney has publicly implicated Bushit himself in the torture "scheme".
More than a few "bad apples"; but they are all at the TOP, and also include the fake hero and falsely esteemed Colin Powell.
May 15, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone is entitled to at least one wrong opinion, but can we have some reasonable discussion here please, instead of or at least in addition to your dogmatic pronouncements?
May 15, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your allegations and I have mentioned many other serious High Crimes and Misdeamoners that are HighLy Impeachable Offenses.
From my observation, I also agree with your comments in reference to the former Secretary of State, Colin Powell.
In that position and from his VOLUNTARY (UNTRUTHFUL AND DISHONEST) UNITED NATIONS SPEECH that led our 'We the People' Democratic Country to an illegal War(s) and his own admission, to my recollection, that these statements are false and unsupported.
Colin Powell should be held accountable. Also, from my observation he has shown NO REMORSE and NO REASONABLE ATTEMPT AT AN APOLOGY OR TO ACCEPT ANY TRANSPARENCY, OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
In my view he has shown to seemingly some extent hollow, shallow statements and to some extent and thereofore with seemingly an abundance of false and misleading self rewarding gratification and/or endeavors, thereof, to my recollection, none of which coincide to the full expected extent within our US Constitution, Bill of Rights necessary and expected support for TRANSPARENCY, OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
May 17, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1694097,00.html
I think we can now guess the real reasons the CIA destoyed tapes of interrogations in 2002 and 2003...
It wasn't because they showed waterboarding, it was probably because they showed interrogators trying to link Al Qaeda and Saddam via the use of torture.
Did Rumsfeld and Cheney personally write questions for the interrogators? It would fit their style.
May 19, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink