Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - President Bush: Honest Head of State, Who Observes/Upholds International Treaties,Or?

host · 09-07-2006, 11:34 AM

IMO, it is important to discuss the admission by president Bush, in his speech yesterday, that the CIA did run "secret prisons", just as Dana Priest of the WaPo reported, last november, and the implications of this admission and the overall, secret Bush administration, "policy", that, as the second quote box here supports, seems to make a case for the accusation that the Bush admin. "program", is itself, a domestic and an international crime, in fact several felonies and an attack on international human rights treaty provisions that the US has long signed off on, upheld, and respected....until 2001:

News Report that broke this "story", last year:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101644_pf.html
CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons
Debate Is Growing Within Agency About Legality and Morality of Overseas System Set Up After 9/11

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 2, 2005; A01

The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement......

Quote:

http://civilliberty.about.com/b/a/257559.htm
Civil Liberties
From Tom Head,
Your Guide to Civil Liberties.

What the President Didn't Say
Category: War on Terror

.......Let's examine relevant portions of <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060906-3.html">the speech</a> carefully. First:<blockquote class=yes>One reason the terrorists have not succeeded is because of the hard work of thousands of dedicated men and women in our government, who have toiled day and night, along with our allies, to stop the enemy from carrying out their plans. And we are grateful for these hardworking citizens of ours. 

Another reason the terrorists have not succeeded is because our government has changed its policies -- and given our military, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel the tools they need to fight this enemy and protect our people and preserve our freedoms.</blockquote>Note that what President Bush is saying here is very clearly that there is a connection between the amount of power given to his administration and the absence of post-9/11 terrorist attacks. He is arguing, in effect, that you can't have one without the other--that a more libertarian government would not be able to effectively fight terrorism. He provides no tangible evidence to back up this assertion, but he doesn't really have to. The overwhelming memory of 9/11 hovers over his speech; he has delivered it less than a week before the fifth anniversary of the attacks, and even gone to the trouble of stocking the audience with the families of 9/11 victims, as he noted at the beginning of his speech:<blockquote class=yes>Thank you. Thanks for the warm welcome. Welcome to the White House. Mr. Vice President, Secretary Rice, Attorney General Gonzales, Ambassador Negroponte, General Hayden, members of the United States Congress, families who lost loved ones in the terrorist attacks on our nation, and my fellow citizens: Thanks for coming.</blockquote>So the message here is undeniable: "When you hear me talk about these complex civil liberties issues, think of 9/11. Think of how much danger you're in, and how badly you want to be safe." 

Politicians typically make that kind of blatant appeal to fear when they're asking for more power, or attempting to justify power that they already have. 

After reminding us that we're safe because his administration has been granted a controversial amount of power, President Bush goes on to say:<blockquote class=yes>The terrorists who declared war on America represent no nation, they defend no territory, and they wear no uniform. They do not mass armies on borders, or flotillas of warships on the high seas. They operate in the shadows of society; they send small teams of operatives to infiltrate free nations; they live quietly among their victims; they conspire in secret, and then they strike without warning.</blockquote>This is important because it is the same reasoning the Bush administration used in <a href="http://civilliberty.about.com/od/waronterror/p/hamdan.htm">Hamdan v. Rumsfeld</a> (2006) to justify treatment of accused terrorists in a manner inconsistent with the Geneva Conventions. The Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration's argument and ruled that the Geneva Conventions do in fact apply to accused terrorists, but President Bush's statement here is a subtle reminder that he still regards terrorists as a class of enemy separate from enemy soldiers. In other words, there are things that we wouldn't do to a soldier that we might do to a terrorist. Things that he alludes to in his very next sentence:<blockquote class=yes>In this new war, the most important source of information on where the terrorists are hiding and what they are planning is the terrorists, themselves. Captured terrorists have unique knowledge about how terrorist networks operate. They have knowledge of where their operatives are deployed, and knowledge about what plots are underway. This intelligence -- this is intelligence that cannot be found any other place. And our security depends on getting this kind of information.</blockquote>If President Bush is talking about ordinary interrogations, then this statement is meaningless pap. After all, what would be the alternative? Arresting accused terrorists and then not interrogating them? But President Bush is not talking about ordinary interrogations. Although he makes mention of military arrests in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the long-debated prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the real topic of his speech is a little more controversial.........

.....President Bush follows up this statement with a description of the arrest of Abu Zubaydah, and the most explicit concession yet that the CIA has used "torture-lite" as an interrogation method:<blockquote class=yes>We knew that Zubaydah had more information that could save innocent lives, but he stopped talking. As his questioning proceeded, it became clear that he had received training on how to resist interrogation. And so the CIA used an alternative set of procedures. These procedures were designed to be safe, to comply with our laws, our Constitution, and our treaty obligations. The Department of Justice reviewed the authorized methods extensively and determined them to be lawful. I cannot describe the specific methods used -- I think you understand why -- if I did, it would help the terrorists learn how to resist questioning, and to keep information from us that we need to prevent new attacks on our country. But I can say the procedures were tough, and they were safe, and lawful, and necessary.</blockquote>And they gave us information we wouldn't have otherwise had, right? Well...not necessarily:<blockquote class=yes>Zubaydah was questioned using these procedures, and soon he began to provide information on key al Qaeda operatives, including information that helped us find and capture more of those responsible for the attacks on September the 11th. For example, Zubaydah identified one of KSM's accomplices in the 9/11 attacks -- a terrorist named Ramzi bin al Shibh. The information Zubaydah provided helped lead to the capture of bin al Shibh. And together these two terrorists provided information that helped in the planning and execution of the operation that captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.</blockquote>So we used controversial and secret interrogation techniques in secret CIA prisons, denied due process, violated the Geneva Conventions and very probably the War Crimes Act as well (see below), and we got information that...well, helped. 

Note that with Abu Zubaydah, President Bush states very clearly that the CIA tried conventional interrogation techniques, that they didn't work, and that the newer, more controversial techniques yielded information that was helpful but may or may not have been crucial. Fair enough. The information obtained from Khalid Sheikh Muhammad using these methods was crucial, right? That's how it sounds on a first reading, but let's look at what the president didn't say:<blockquote class=yes>Once in our custody, KSM was questioned by the CIA using these procedures, and he soon provided information that helped us stop another planned attack on the United States. During questioning, KSM told us about another al Qaeda operative he knew was in CIA custody -- a terrorist named Majid Khan. KSM revealed that Khan had been told to deliver $50,000 to individuals working for a suspected terrorist leader named Hambali, the leader of al Qaeda's Southeast Asian affiliate known as "J-I". CIA officers confronted Khan with this information. Khan confirmed that the money had been delivered to an operative named Zubair, and provided both a physical description and contact number for this operative.</blockquote>Please note that this is the paragraph that immediately follows the discussion of Abu Zubaydah. See a difference in the way these two interrogations are described? Zubaydah was interrogated in the normal way, didn't yield the necessary information, was subjected to "torture-lite," and yielded information that may or may not have been crucial to counterterrorism efforts. But Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was simply captured and questioned using "these procedures"--if we're to read this literally, he went straight from handcuffs to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Box_(torture)">sweat box</a>. That doesn't make much sense...unless by "these procedures" President Bush is referring collectively to all interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, without making it clear how much information was obtained through ordinary interrogation, or how successful or unsuccessful the CIA's use of more controversial techniques might have been. President Bush does give an example of one instance where Khalid Sheikh Muhammad gave specific information about a terrorist attack:<blockquote class=yes>KSM also provided vital information on al Qaeda's efforts to obtain biological weapons. During questioning, KSM admitted that he had met three individuals involved in al Qaeda's efforts to produce anthrax, a deadly biological agent -- and he identified one of the individuals as a terrorist named Yazid. KSM apparently believed we already had this information, because Yazid had been captured and taken into foreign custody before KSM's arrest.</blockquote>...and the information was obtained through good old fashioned misdirection, something any good police detective could have used without violating the Bill of Rights, much less the Geneva Conventions or the War Crimes Act. 

Note that, despite the numerous examples President Bush has given, he fails to name a single specific instance where the controversial interrogation techniques yielded any useful information that we didn't already have. The information invariably "helped" in some non-specific way:<blockquote class=yes>Terrorists held in CIA custody have also provided information that helped stop a planned strike on U.S. Marines at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti -- they were going to use an explosive laden water tanker. They helped stop a planned attack on the U.S. consulate in Karachi using car bombs and motorcycle bombs, and they helped stop a plot to hijack passenger planes and fly them into Heathrow or the Canary Wharf in London.</blockquote>These nightmare scenarios are supposed to make us more receptive to the idea of secret CIA prisons and controversial interrogation techniques, as are the consistent references to the 9/11 attacks. The phrase "9/11" or "September 11th" is used 14 times in this short speech, which is actually about later attacks, if one wants to get technical, and not 9/11 itself. It is the specter of 9/11 that is supposed to make us amenable to...to...well, what, exactly? President Bush mentions a proposal to ask Congress to approve military commissions to try suspected terrorists, but he has asked for that before--there's nothing new or controversial about this legislation, which has already been discussed and is expected to easily pass Congress. No, he's asking for something a little more controversial:<blockquote class=yes>So today, I'm asking Congress to pass legislation that will clarify the rules for our personnel fighting the war on terror. First, I'm asking Congress to list the specific, recognizable offenses that would be considered crimes under the War Crimes Act -- so our personnel can know clearly what is prohibited in the handling of terrorist enemies. Second, I'm asking that Congress make explicit that by following the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act our personnel are fulfilling America's obligations under Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions. Third, I'm asking that Congress make it clear that captured terrorists cannot use the Geneva Conventions as a basis to sue our personnel in courts -- in U.S. courts. The men and women who protect us should not have to fear lawsuits filed by terrorists because they're doing their jobs. 

The need for this legislation is urgent. We need to ensure that those questioning terrorists can continue to do everything within the limits of the law to get information that can save American lives. My administration will continue to work with the Congress to get this legislation enacted -- but time is of the essence. Congress is in session just for a few more weeks, and passing this legislation ought to be the top priority.</blockquote>Okay, so here's the pitch: "I've been running a secret program for five years that may be in violation of the War Crimes Act, I can give you no evidence that it ever accomplished any useful goals, and I want you to pass legislation that will, sight unseen, exempt that program from prosecution. Oh, and by the way--you have three weeks." The fact that this lines up with the election season might not be coincidental; portraying Democrats as soft on terrorism, due to their civil liberties concerns, is central to the Republican Party's 2006 strategy. But if we take President Bush at his word and assume that politics plays no role in his decision, the implications are even more frightening. President Bush offers us a reassurance that is much less reassuring than silence would have been:<blockquote class=yes>I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it -- and I will not authorize it. Last year, my administration worked with Senator John McCain, and I signed into law the Detainee Treatment Act, which established the legal standard for treatment of detainees wherever they are held. I support this act. And as we implement this law, our government will continue to use every lawful method to obtain intelligence that can protect innocent people, and stop another attack like the one we experienced on September the 11th, 2001.</blockquote>Why would President Bush make a point of saying this if the CIA secret interrogation program did not include techniques that the international human rights community would describe as torture? 

The Bush administration has long been accused of using <a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11913,1066041,00.html">"torture lite"</a>--interrogation methods that constitute torture as far as most of the civilized world is concerned, but technically avoid violation of U.S. codes regarding torture. Except for the War Crimes Act, which--drafted, as it was, with international war crimes regulations in mind--uses a more widely accepted definition of torture. 

So President Bush's message to the international community is simple: The CIA secret prisons, their existence long suspected by conspiracy buffs, really do exist. "Torture-lite" techniques, which the Bush administration has been long accused of using, really have been put to use. And, in an ultimate display of chutzpah, President Bush has asked Congress to pass legislation that would essentially legitimize both. 

This is a very big deal, and the international human rights community <a href="http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/09/06/usdom14139.htm">recognizes it as such</a>. Here's hoping the mainstream U.S. media will follow suit.

Quote:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=36597
09.07.06

BUSH LIES ABOUT RAMZI BIN AL SHIBH, ABU ZUBAYDAH AND TORTURE:

Not that it should surprise anyone anymore, but yesterday's <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060906-3.html">stomach-churning Bush speech</a> defending torture contains this little number:

We knew that Zubaydah had more information that could save innocent lives, but he stopped talking. As his questioning proceeded, it became clear that he had received training on how to resist interrogation. And so the CIA used an alternative set of procedures. These procedures were designed to be safe, to comply with our laws, our Constitution, and our treaty obligations. The Department of Justice reviewed the authorized methods extensively and determined them to be lawful. I cannot describe the specific methods used--I think you understand why--if I did, it would help the terrorists learn how to resist questioning, and to keep information from us that we need to prevent new attacks on our country. But I can say the procedures were tough, and they were safe, and lawful, and necessary.

Zubaydah was questioned using these procedures, and soon he began to provide information on key al Qaeda operatives, including information that helped us find and capture more of those responsible for the attacks on September the 11th. For example, Zubaydah identified one of KSM's accomplices in the 9/11 attacks--a terrorist named Ramzi bin al Shibh. The information Zubaydah provided helped lead to the capture of bin al Shibh. And together these two terrorists provided information that helped in the planning and execution of the operation that captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

First, <a href="http://www.ronsuskind.com/theonepercentdoctrine/">according to Ron Suskind</a>, Abu Zubaydah didn't clam up because he was "trained to resist interrogation," but because he has the mental capacity of a retarded child. Second, the idea that Abu Zubaydah's interrogation tipped off the U.S. to the existence of Ramzi bin Al Shibh is just an outright lie. A Nexis search for "Ramzi Binalshibh" between September 11, 2001 and March 1, 2002--the U.S. captured Abu Zubaydah in March 2002--turns up 26 hits for The Washington Post alone. Everyone involved in counterterrorism knew who bin Al Shibh was. Now-retired FBI Al Qaeda hunter Dennis Lormel <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/06/attack/main511244.shtml">told Congress who Ramzi bin Al Shibh was in February 2002.</a> Abu Zubaydah getting waterboarded and spouting bin Al Shibh's name did not tell us anything we did not already know.

Of course, most Americans don't have access to Nexis. And most Americans don't remember--and can't be expected to remember--newspaper coverage of Al Qaeda for a seven-month stretch between the attacks and Abu Zubaydah's capture. Bush is exploiting that ignorance to tell the American people an outright lie in order to convince them that we need to torture people. As Bush once said in another context, if this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.
--Spencer Ackerman

Does the preceding quote box support the idea that Bush told deliberate untruths in his speech, yesterday ? It's no surprise that I think the answer is yes? How do you defend what president Bush has authorized?