« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
If Torture Stopped In 2004, How Is Obama Endangering Americans By Banning It?
There's another part of Lawrence Wilkerson's widely circulated blog post from yesterday that hasn't been given the attention it deserves.
Wilkerson, the former US Army colonel who was Colin Powell's chief of staff at the State Department, wrote:
My investigations have revealed to me--vividly and clearly--that once the Abu Ghraib photographs were made public in the Spring of 2004, the CIA, its contractors, and everyone else involved in administering "the Cheney methods of interrogation", simply shut down. Nada. Nothing. No torture or harsh techniques were employed by any U.S. interrogator. Period. People were too frightened by what might happen to them if they continued.What I am saying is that no torture or harsh interrogation techniques were employed by any U.S. interrogator for the entire second term of Cheney-Bush, 2005-2009. So, if we are to believe the protestations of Dick Cheney, that Obama's having shut down the "Cheney interrogation methods" will endanger the nation, what are we to say to Dick Cheney for having endangered the nation for the last four years of his vice presidency?
When we spoke to Wilkerson yesterday, he confirmed this point, and went further. He said he was now being told that the beginning of the end for the torture program may even have occurred far earlier. Wilkerson said he believes that a "chain reaction" was set off when Alberto Mora, the Navy general counsel who was investigating detainee abuse, first told William Haynes, the Pentagon's general counsel, that the DOD had, in Mora's view, illegally authorized torture. That occurred in December 2002 -- though of course we know that torture continued into at least 2003 and was practiced on detainees captured during the invasion of Iraq, both at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.
What's the significance of all this? If, as Wilkerson says -- and we know of no evidence that refutes him -- the Bush administration didn't torture during its second term, Dick Cheney's alarmist claim that President Obama is putting Americans in danger by refusing to torture becomes even more nonsensical. After all, the Bush administration, it appears, didn't torture for essentially its latter half. Was it, too, putting Americans in danger during that time -- even though there were no successful attacks on the American mainland in that period?
Not that we necessarily needed further proof of Dick Cheney's dishonesty and moral bankruptcy. But this seems like a point that's worth keeping in mind when the former veep gives his next well-publicized interview.
Josh
Zachary
Damn! That's why I come read your stuff. It is mad good.
May 15, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love the phrase "Cheney Methods of Interrogation." If the MSM refuse to call torture by its proper name, we should use "Cheney Methods" instead.
May 15, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not combine the two? The "Cheney Torture Methods" sound great to me.
Of course using that term begs the question whether a shotgun fits into this method group....
May 15, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Instead of "Cheney Torture Methods," we should just start using "Cheney" or "Cheneying" instead of "torture."
"Despite being Cheneyed in Vietnam, John McCain is now such a disgusting coward that he excuses the Bush Administration's use of Cheneying."
or
"Barack Obama promised he would be different, but his capitulation on Cheneying has troubled and saddened many of those who supported and believe in him."
May 15, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've listened to Wilkerson many times and have always admired his integrity. I believe he's an honest man. But having said that, I have to wonder how Wilkerson could possibly know what was done to prisoners after 2004? He hasn't been involved in government since Colin Powell left.
I'm finding it very hard to believe that suddenly all torture stopped because of Abu Ghraib. Four years is a long time to go lily white after having put in place an interrogation machine that they decided was totally effective. We're talking about the Bushies here.
May 15, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ramona, I'm with you. The problem about lies is that when the person tries to say, "I'm not lying this time," well, it's kind hard to believe it, once you've been serially lied to!
Unless we really get down to understanding the "context" of torture and banning everything that fails to be humane treatment, we're going to have this open-door policy, which is nothing more than an invitation to harm, demean, or neglect prisoners - who, regardless of what they have done, are humans, and that basic humanity must be respected.
May 15, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right, unless he says why he believes that no torture occurred in Bush's second term (where'd he get that info?), then it sure looks like conjecture to me.
May 15, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Besides, he's only referring to "US interrogator" - that still leaves open the door for rendition to other nations.
May 15, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
This notion may be a little weedie but if the Cheney folks suspected their methods no longer passed the sniff test and might be construed as torture maybe they stopped doing it in their own facilities and outsourced it thinking that the flak they'd get from rendition would be a lesser problem than the indictments they might be subject to from continuing to torture people in US facilities.
If that's true it shows they were aware that their legal justifications were crumbling. Yet one more point at which at which an immoral decision was made.
These people (Cheney and crew) had multiple opportunities to change the path they chose. They continued to make the unjust and immoral decision every time.
Bastards! (no offense to bastards)
May 15, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you are saying sounds plausible, but this where we need more proof. I haven't been keeping up on the rendition issue--did it step up right about when Abu Ghraib? If so, this is big.
The timing of a tactic change could show that the White House knew that its torture's legalese justification was a farce. (um, is that English?)
May 15, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
My own weedy theory is that as the operation changed from an international quest for Al Qaeda to an Iraqi/Afghani counterinsurgency they compartmentalized it 100% under the president's constitutional authority over the military and got it out of the intelligence portfolio. Then they eliminated any weak links (other agencies that might have their own guidelines/investigations) and had been running lights-dark ever since.
May 15, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wilkerson spent a significant amount of time INVESTIGATING FROM WITHIN, AFTER he resigned as Powell's Chief of Staff, and AFTER Powell left.
How many times does HE have to explain that before he is believed on the point?
May 15, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't doubt he didn't uncover anything. I just doubt he had the authority to look where he needed to in order to uncover the activities.
You notice he really hedges. He says "The CIA and their contractors". The media (including TPM to an extent) have swallowed uncritically this artificial box that Cheney and his supporters are trying to use to constrain the torture debate. Torture = Gitmo = Al Qaeda ... now go back to sleep and enjoy American Idol.
Bottom line, Wilkerson is either mistaken or lying.
May 15, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not correct. Wilkerson stayed on after Powell left in an unofficial capacity investigating to find out what when on. He explains as much.
As for the Americans who are threatened by Obama stopping the program? Easy" Cheney and his fellow members of the Bushit criminal enterprise. If it isn't being done anymore, then there's no reason to not investigate it.
May 15, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps they stopped doing and decided to work around it another way, rendition is one supposed way to do that. But many of the western countries who would be classified as allies, such as Germany have been outspoken and determined to find out if renditions happened in their countries. I think what you have seen is that the initial verve of many nations to support us following 9-11 lost steam because of the many inconstant intelligence and military mistakes have left our allies question the US power to lead. I think most western European countries understand our importance but over the last eight years have found that our leaders led them down a path and found the information they were given was not only dubious but manipulated to curry their favor.
As to how would Wilkerson know that no detainee abuse occurred after 2004, well he may not have had access to classified material but I am sure that his ties along with Powell's ties in the DOD are still alive and well. I am not saying that illegal information was passed to Powell or Wilkerson but these were two very decorated and respected officers (from both political sides of the isle) and I would not find it surprising to find that many in the DOD and Pentagon might look to them for advice on how to avoid their own mistakes from the past.
May 15, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
But you are assuming that when they say "totally effective," they mean effective at getting the truth. More and more it is looking like getting the truth was not the point; what they wanted was something they could use to make a case for invading Iraq. "Actionable intelligence," you might say -- something they could act on regardless of whether it was true. And you might say that torture was indeed totally effective at doing that.
If that was the real point, then they really didn't need to employ torture after 2004; they had already achieved what they wanted.
May 15, 2009 4:29 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 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a nice point, if in fact it's true.
Cheney and Co. set up their own intelligence capability, wrote their own laws to govern interrogation, and carried out torture to try and solicit/invent evidence of a 9/11 connection to Iraq. Doesn't it seem strange to think they would stop because a JAG Lawyer was making some noise about illegality?
It would be wonderful to believe that torture was limited to isolated cases, and a short time frame. Then we could put a bow on this story and move on.
May 15, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would not be surprised if Cheney was running a shadow government even now, that continues to torture in black-hole prisons around the world!
May 15, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
that is a possibility--it's suspect that just as the national discussion on torture turns to Cheney using water boarding, not to prevent terrorist attacks, but rather to provide justification to invade and occupy Iraq, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, the one prisoner who provided that false link, allegedly "committed suicide" on Monday.
May 15, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be cool if someone could frame this issue within the "Play him off, Keyboard Cat" meme.
May 15, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0706web.pdf
It appears the ending date is a result of when the information was gathered and prepared. The sources don't necessarily indicate the actual practices end.
Elsewhere, the report makes an apparent assertion the abuse continued through 2006, but the three case study interviews (from Nama, Tiger, Glory) all served 2004 or earlier. Many other interviews with military personnel who aren't specifically highlighted are referenced. I am assuming the extended timeline is based on those sources - but HRW should probably be asked to clarify.
It seems the people under Sanchez actually did shape up - or got orders to. You need to look closely at JSOC (and McChrystal) if you are really interested in documenting abuse into Bush's second term. Harrington (under Fast) was prevented from investigating and they were able to block Geoffery Miller. Formica also skirted their activities. What are the chances Wilkerson would get access? Wasn't he from the State Department?
May 15, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sing along with Dick:
Chene, Chene, Chene....Chene of Fools.
May 15, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The people who believe Dick Cheney, and who believe torture "kept America safe after 9-11" are overwhelmingly from the South and mostly Evangelical. Draw your own conclusions.
May 15, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a "thank you" to Wilkerson for refusing to use the euphemistic formulation "enhanced interrogation techniques." Instead, he sticks to "torture" "harsh interrogation techniques" and, best of all, "Cheney interrogation methods."
If Cheney wants to continue trying to make a case for using torture, let's brand it with his name.
May 15, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Demand the Cheney Torture brand. The others are just poor imitations.
May 15, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Cheney Brand Torturers can't extract a phony confession ... NOBODY CAN!
May 15, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once they had gotten their war in Iraq, and once it became abundantly clear that torturing people wasn't going to produce anything to manufacture or otherwise support their rationale for being there, I think it's quite plausible that Cheney & Co. simply lost interest.
May 15, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotta repeat that it was during Rove's "permanent Republican majority" delusional days that the torture ocurred.
Still thinkin' they thought they were immune from future repurcussions, and in imagining their grip on power was getting stronger they leaned into it with abandon and zeal.
That zealousness is coming back around to bite them in the ass. Not only did they assume incorrectly that history was forever theirs to manipulate, they failed to cover their tracks sufficiently to keep the hounds at bay, if there ever was an investigation.
Hubris, plain and simple. Rove's got the same issue with the Siegelman situation, where he felt both empowered and immune, and he was, as ususal, only half right.
As always, the wages of pride are humiliation and disgrace.
May 18, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the title of this article says enough about the question to solve it.
May 18, 2009 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink