The Torture Memos: A Quick Response to George W. Bush's Officials

Related Link: Text of the Torture Memos
Related Post: 4 Torture Memos Released, No Prosecutions of Interrogators

I am still concerned that the Obama Administration's release of four Bush-era memoranda documenting the authorisation of torture (or, as Politico insists, "interrogation techniques") is, in part, a deflection from ongoing issues over Executive power and surveillance/rendition/indefinite detention. And I suspect we'll be pursuing those matters in days to come.

But for today, as former members and acolytes of the Bush Administration absolve themselves in the press:

This was torture sanctioned by President Bush and his chief advisors. This was torture that was illegal, immoral, and ineffective. This was a torture that did not win the "War on Terror" but damaged US foreign policy and American standing with other countries and peoples.

This was a brute exercise of power, sanctioned by (but not actually responding directly to) the brutal attacks upon the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in September 2001.

To Michael Hayden, former Director of the National Security Agency/Central Intelligence Agency, and Michael Mukasey, former Attorney General, who write in the Wall Street Journal that the release of the memoranda "makes the problem [of national security] worse":

Both of you, without question or qualm, carried out the orders that violated the Geneva Conventions, defied agencies such as the Red Cross, suspended any notion of US and international law, and --- in certain cases --- led to injury and death. Both of you strove for years to hide these orders. Both of you put out stories of the effectiveness of "interrogation techniques" which were later discredited.

To William Kristol, who sneers at the statement of current Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair that "[these] methods, read on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009, appear graphic and disturbing":

From your editor's chair at the Weekly Standard and with yo social-political connections in Washington, you pressed for a war --- one that would both demonstrate and assure American superiority --- you had been advocating since 1998. Initially, you declared that war against the "jihadists". But, even as you supported the torture of detainees, your priority was not our safety from Al Qa'eda but the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. And, after that, you wanted the overthrow of the Iranian Government.

Your primary concern was not "terrorists". Yet you were happy, in the name of perpetual war, to promote any method, no matter how effectively it shredded our own laws and standards rather than the threat from our enemies.

To Karl Rove, who Twitters about Kristol's column: "Another Must Read":

Your primary, maybe only, concern about the measures taken by the Bush Administration was the extent to which they supported the election and re-election campaigns of Republican candidates. If we raised our voices against torture, that only bolstered your message that we were soft, unreliable, appeasers of the enemy. And you too were only using Al Qa'eda as a foil to get to your #1 battle, the War against Iraq that would ensure a Republican mandate for years to come.

Forgive me, gentlemen, if you are receiving an undue share of my anger, given that the former President, George W. Bush, and the leaders of the campaign for torture, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, should also be held to account. But as they have not responded to yesterday's news....

Your fatuous, sometimes whining criticism of this current Administration for revealing your illegal, immoral, counter-productive seizure and manipulation of power is no better than the criminal blaming the judge who allowed the evidence into his courtroom.

You are deceivers and liars. In an ideal world, you would be held to criminal account for your actions; in this world (ironically thanks to yesterday's Administration decisions) you will face no formal prosecution. Therefore, we can only hope that your ex post facto excuses and pretenses reinforce a determination to ensure that this shall never happen again.

Text and Analysis of Obama Statement: 4 Torture Memos Released, No Prosecutions of Interrogators

Related Post: The Torture Memos - A Quick Response to George W. Bush’s Officials

UPDATE: Full Text of the 4 Torture Memos

We'll have full analysis of President Obama's statement tomorrow, but here's an immediate reading.

This is good politics. Very good. The Obama Administration pins blame for unacceptable practices on the Bush Administration while finally getting the hook of a criminal showdown for any of those officials. The absolution of "those who carried out their duties relying in good faith" is also the signal that Bush advisors who ordered those activities will not suffer a Truth Commission or judicial hearings.

It's also good for another troubling reason. There are a series of cases where the Obama Administration is not only holding onto its predecessor's executive powers but fighting to ensure there are no court hearings on whether those powers are legal. From warrantless surveillance to rendition to unlimited detention, Gitmo-style, at Camp Bagram in Afghanistan, the Administration is playing the political game of "Look at the other guys, don't fret about us."

OBAMA STATEMENT

The Department of Justice will today release certain memos issued by the Office of Legal Counsel between 2002 and 2005 as part of an ongoing court case. These memos speak to techniques that were used in the interrogation of terrorism suspects during that period, and their release is required by the rule of law.

My judgment on the content of these memos is a matter of record. In one of my very first acts as President, I prohibited the use of these interrogation techniques by the United States because they undermine our moral authority and do not make us safer. Enlisting our values in the protection of our people makes us stronger and more secure. A democracy as resilient as ours must reject the false choice between our security and our ideals, and that is why these methods of interrogation are already a thing of the past.

But that is not what compelled the release of these legal documents today. While I believe strongly in transparency and accountability, I also believe that in a dangerous world, the United States must sometimes carry out intelligence operations and protect information that is classified for purposes of national security. I have already fought for that principle in court and will do so again in the future. However, after consulting with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and others, I believe that exceptional circumstances surround these memos and require their release.

First, the interrogation techniques described in these memos have already been widely reported. Second, the previous Administration publicly acknowledged portions of the program - and some of the practices - associated with these memos. Third, I have already ended the techniques described in the memos through an Executive Order. Therefore, withholding these memos would only serve to deny facts that have been in the public domain for some time. This could contribute to an inaccurate accounting of the past, and fuel erroneous and inflammatory assumptions about actions taken by the United States.

In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution. The men and women of our intelligence community serve courageously on the front lines of a dangerous world. Their accomplishments are unsung and their names unknown, but because of their sacrifices, every single American is safer. We must protect their identities as vigilantly as they protect our security, and we must provide them with the confidence that they can do their jobs.

Going forward, it is my strong belief that the United States has a solemn duty to vigorously maintain the classified nature of certain activities and information related to national security. This is an extraordinarily important responsibility of the presidency, and it is one that I will carry out assertively irrespective of any political concern. Consequently, the exceptional circumstances surrounding these memos should not be viewed as an erosion of the strong legal basis for maintaining the classified nature of secret activities. I will always do whatever is necessary to protect the national security of the United States.

This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America's ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future.

The United States is a nation of laws. My Administration will always act in accordance with those laws, and with an unshakeable commitment to our ideals. That is why we have released these memos, and that is why we have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them never take place again.

Bush-Cheney Official Armitage on Torture: "Maybe I Should Have Quit"

Richard Armitage is neither a lefty nor a softie. He has served in the CIA, military special forces, and Department of Defense, and in the Bush White House, he was Deputy Secretary of State to Colin Powell. On the day after 9-11, he personally laid out the seven-point ultimatum to the head of the Pakistani intelligence services: comply with our campaign or the US is coming after your country.

So when Armitage tells Al Jazeera that he should have resigned over the Bush Administration's treatment of prisoners of war, this is not the regret of an official who was opposed to the campaign against Al Qa'eda and international terrorism. And when he says for the record that, yes, detainees were tortured by waterboarding, this is a statement for the record rather than party-politics criticism.

This short clip is another sad far-from-footnote in the record of how a US Government tore up international law such as the Geneva Conventions and any meaningful ethical standards in the name of a "War on Terror". Armitage and Powell were out-manoeuvred by a Vice President's office and Department of Defense intent on claiming an unchallenged Executive authority beyond law or public accountability. (What Armitage does not mention in this clip is the awful irony that those same officials would walk away from the battle with Al Qa'eda to pursue war in Iraq.)

Yet, lest anyone make out Richard Armitage to be a valiant hero in a sordid saga, it should be noted that he is eager to avoid any culpability in torture --- as he did not know about waterboarding --- and equally happy to throw blame on members of Congress.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hEvvUBkYDk[/youtube]

Torture News: CIA Director Shipped to Kabul in Hazing Ritual

New York Times: The Central Intelligence Agency said Thursday that it would decommission the secret overseas prisons where it subjected Al Qaeda prisoners to brutal interrogation methods, bringing to a symbolic close the most controversial counterterrorism program of the Bush administration.

However, according to our colleagues at The Onion, before the secret prisons were put out of business, they were sent one more very special "guest":

Blindfolded Panetta Shipped To Kabul In Hilarious CIA Hazing Ritual

WASHINGTON—As part of the agency's decades-long tradition of initiation, rookie CIA director Leon Panetta was gagged, blindfolded, and placed inside a large storage container bound for the war-torn capital of Afghanistan Friday. "You should have seen him—he was all, 'Guys, this isn't funny! Guys?'" outgoing director Michael Hayden said. "I can't wait to see the satellite photos of his face after they make him eat six goldfish, spin him around, and subject him to the aggressive interrogation techniques of Jalaluddin Haqqani. Plus, we wrote 'I Hate Arabs' all over his face in permanent marker." Although the 10 masked men who kidnapped Panetta from his Langley, Virginia office reportedly stripped him down before packing him into the cargo hold, sources said they did give him $10,000 cash and a 9 mm pistol.

Video and Transcript: Guantánamo Lawyers Facing US Jail Time?

Clive Stafford Smith and Ahmad Ghappour, lawyers for a number of Guantánamo Bay detainees, have been summoned to court over a letter they sent to President Obama detailing the torture their client Binyam Mohamed claims he faced. Stafford Smith and Ghappour face charges of 'unprofessional conduct' and revealing classified evidence, and will attend a hearing in Washington, DC on May 11. Stafford Smith has called the charges "frivolous", pointing out that all information in the letter, classified or otherwise, had been redacted by censors, leaving only the subject line "In re: torture of Binyam Mohamed". Like Stafford Smith I'd also question the sanity a law that makes revealing classified information about Guantántamo Bay to the President of the United States a crime.



AMY GOODMAN: This last story, an unusual development in the case of Binyam Mohamed, the British resident recently released after seven years in US custody, where he claims he was repeatedly tortured, first in a secret CIA prison, later at Guantanamo. Binyam Mohamed’s lawyers, Clive Stafford Smith and Ahmad Ghappour, could face six months in a US prison, The Guardian newspaper revealed last week, because of a letter they sent to President Obama explaining their client’s allegations of torture by US agents.

Officials from the Department of Defense who monitor and censor communication between Guantanamo prisoners and their lawyers filed a complaint against Mohamed’s lawyers for “unprofessional conduct” and for revealing classified evidence to the President. The memo the lawyers sent to Obama was completely redacted except for the title. It had urged the President to release evidence of Mohamed’s alleged torture into the public domain. Clive Stafford Smith and Ahmad Ghappour have been summoned before a D.C. court on May 11th.

I’m joined now in these last few minutes by Clive Stafford Smith, director of the British legal charity Reprieve.

Welcome to Democracy Now! Clive Stafford Smith, you’re afraid of being arrested if you come into this country?

CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH: No, I’m going to come to the country, because I want to face the charges. I mean, the charges are, to my mind, frivolous, because—it may be confusing to your listeners when you say that we supposedly revealed classified evidence and then say it was all censored—it was all censored. There wasn’t one iota of classified evidence revealed. So the real question, I guess, here is why the government continues to cover up the evidence of Binyam Mohamed’s torture.

AMY GOODMAN: But please explain, because I think this can be very confusing, what it is they said you did in this letter to President Obama. You are Binyam Mohamed’s lawyer.

CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH: Well, I wrote a letter to President Obama and attached to it a memorandum that was going to originally be the evidence that showed that Binyam was tortured. But that evidence we had to submit through the classification review process. So, ultimately, the two-page memo of evidence that Binyam had been tortured was all redacted, as you mentioned, so it was all blacked out. I mean, even to the President it was blacked out. And the only thing left in it was, you know, “In re: torture of Binyam Mohamed.”

What we were trying to do was get President Obama the information he needs to make a judgment as to whether the US should continue to cover up this evidence of torture. And it’s paradoxical that the President of the United States is not being permitted to make that judgment in a meaningful way.

AMY GOODMAN: So you will come to the United States for this May 11th hearing?

CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH: Oh, my goodness, yes. I mean, I am, I will say, offended by this process, but nothing would keep me away. I want to clear both mine and Ahmad’s name. And I want the real issue to be why the government continues to cover up the evidence of Binyam’s torture, because how can it be that we, as Americans, are not allowed to know when our government officials have committed criminal offenses against people like Binyam Mohamed? That just makes no sense at all. And if, indeed, someone should be on trial here, it should be the people who tortured Binyam.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Clive Stafford Smith, thank you very much for this update.

CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH: Thank you.
Video of the exchange on Democracy Now! as well as the transcript are available here.