Former Bush Official Zelikow Decries Bush Interrogation Techniques

“the pendulum swings too far the other way…”
Well, the prevailing ( majority) view seems to be that in order to stick to our American principles, we arrest government workers in the anti-terror field for torture, and we bring terrorist detainees to America, give them lawyers, a stipend, and Constitutional rights.
We’ll no doubt be living with the real-world ramifications of this approach today and in the future, but, that’s what most people want. This is the new American terrorism policy, and we voted for it, so there should be no complaints.

Nancy’s nose…I like that.

you nuts still don’t get it. “warranted as necessary”? That translates as “if we really need to torture, it’s okay….” I personally want to continue to live in a country that has values that amount to something, and can’t be traded in for convenience. Either we condone torture or we don’t. If it’s okay to torture a terrorism suspect, is it okay to torture a serial murderer? Is it okay to torture anyone we think might have information that could save lives? How about torturing people as a deterrent? Wouldn’t that save lives? The problem with this kind of thinking is that you become the barbarians you’re defending yourselves against. Torture is not warranted, has little effectiveness, and doesn’t belong in the toolbox of a society that calls itself moral. End of story.

Robert Mueller, who was appointed by Bush in 2001 and remains FBI director under Obama, delivered that assessment at the end of this December 2008 article in Vanity Fair on torture:
I ask Mueller: So far as he is aware, have any attacks on America been disrupted thanks to intelligence obtained through what the administration still calls “enhanced techniques”?
“I’m really reluctant to answer that,” Mueller says. He pauses, looks at an aide, and then says quietly, declining to elaborate: “I don’t believe that has been the case.”
Sargent

How he sees a constitutional problem in this is beyond my humble comprehension. The constitution does not apply to foreign enemy combatants caught on the battlefield outside the U.S. I argue that it may not even apply to a U.S. citizen fighting our troops in foreign territory. If we were to extend constitutional protection to any who attack us and put them through the U.S. court system I am betting that we will encourage further attacks, not shame them into behaving because of our moral superiority. Comments and thoughts are requested to flesh out or disprove my argument. Thanks!

dantheguy: I am not in favor of torture, it is morally repugnant, so we agree on something. I would say the simple disagreement comes down to how torture is defined. Most regimes that practice torture right now use electrocution, drowning, severing digits, pulling finger nails, burning, and culminating in stoning, beheading, burning to death. This is how the waterboarding was accomplished, compare the care we took with actual torture:
Under a strict set of rules, every pour of water had to be counted — and the number of pours was limited.
Also: Waterboarding interrogation sessions were permitted on no more than five days within any 30-day period.
No more than two sessions were permitted in any 24-hour period.
A session could last no longer than two hours.
There could be at most six pours of water lasting ten seconds or longer — and never longer than 40 seconds — during any individual session.
Water could be poured on a subject for a combined total of no more than 12 minutes during any 24 hour period.

Jason -
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003 and Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in August 2002.
With all due respect, you math is from fantasyland.
The “interrogators” at Abu Ghraib were trained by the GTMO “interrogators”. There is an article from the New Yorker describing our actions there and it is quite disturbing.

“…you get the position that the substantive standard is the same as it is in analogous U.S. constitutional law. … In other words, Americans in any town of this country could constitutionally be hung from the ceiling naked, sleep deprived, water-boarded, and all the rest”
===============
I don’t believe that. Could Americans in any town of this country be constitutionally hit by a Predator Drone?

jason: i don’t think this is about the constitution. it’s about honoring our obligation to the geneva convention.

robert b: My answer to your argument is very simple… If the rationale for torturing people is to keep people safe, then you must be in favor of torturing as a deterrent. If we tortured everyone convicted of DUI, we’d see a drop in the number of drunk-driving related deaths, I guarantee. Some people have suggested doing a “procedure” on sex-offenders. Highly barbaric, but would it prevent future attacks? I’m guessing yes. Your argument only addresses torturing people for info, but if torture itself is okay because it would save lives, then you’ve got to be willing to use it as a deterrent, right?

I’m not affiliated with either political party but I choose the party that would keep my family secure – that would Republican for 2010 and 2012.
******************************
Research is needed on your part. Our torturing is the primary recruiting tool for up and coming terrorist.
btw – what party was in office ON 9/11?

thx jake,
will listen to it tomorrow morning. Have seen Zelikow on Newshour and Maddow. Always struck me as reasonable. Should be a fascinating listen.

“Mueller says…’I don’t believe that has been the case.’”
We can note first, that Mueller is FBI and CIA, and second that foreign intelligence is the purview of the CIA not the FBI.
But I seriously doubt that Mueller would deny that the harsh interrogations identified many, many of the senior Al Qaeda operatives and their whereabouts, and that they were subsequently found and killed. You tell me whether any attacks were thereby prevented.

MayBee: Our torturing is the #1 recruitment tool for terrosits, even if the 9-11 terrorists were motivated by other hatred. More importantly, I’d just like to ask you…are you okay with the U.S. becoming simply another nation with no moral compass, content to pursue power and survival with whatever tools are available, not standing for anything or standing up for anything? Is it simply “us vs. them” to you, and whatever it takes to stay on top, that’s okay? If so, then why bother trying to act like America is some special place…you would have us become just like the terrorists.

“No attacks on American soil since 2002 when Bush started enhanced interrogation”- Actually, that’s false. There are three: One at LAX, one in Seattle, and one at UNC. The first two involve shootings and deaths. The last, a whack-job in a car who managed to not seriously hurt anyone.
Finally, don’t Americans who are killed outside the country count? i.e. Bali, Madrid, Istanbul. Finally, don’t forget the increased number of American soldiers killed because of Abu Ghraib. (see Pentagon report) Please stop the Repub “spin”.

Zelikow was the coverup artist for 911 there are no terrorists. It looks like this is a haven for Republican trouble makers. I don’t think this world will tolerate much more of this. There will never be a Gop candidate elected again. The democrats are just as scarey. Corporate brainwashed people who watch to much tv is what I see here

If so, then why bother trying to act like America is some special place…you would have us become just like the terrorists.
=================
The world is not this black and white.
Everything you read in those memos show the lawyers were diligently trying to put limits on what could be done. You can disagree with what they decided, but you can also see this was not blanket permission to be as abusive as they desired.
That is a long way from chopping heads off journalists, translators, and backpackers. That’s a long way from skinning people alive.
Killing people is wrong, right? But we go to war to stop further wrongs from being done. Is killing in a war so much easier to justify than water boarding or putting a caterpillar near someone afraid of them?
That may be an easy answer for you, but it isn’t for me.

“you have no evidence that torture (why not just call it what it is, not harsh interrogations’ we’re not shouting at them dude) produced any actionable info….no evidence. You have only Cheney’s claim of such.”
Utterly false. I have the statements of the last five CIA directors, including Clinton’s, and the statement of Obama’s intelligence director, Admiral Blair. And I do not call it “torture” because torture encompasses so many activities infinitely worse than waterboarding and sleep deprivation, so I don’t find it a very useful term when discussing those two activities, both of which I have been subjected to (and neither I nor anybody else called them torture at the time). And surely you recognize a distinction between shouting at people and, say, breaking them on a wheel. We’re doing neither. Dude.

Fascist Hyena:
“I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It’s no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse.
The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001.
(M. Alexander – Air Force Senior Interrogator)

All I can add is that these guys are still wearing their heads and I assume are being treated better than they would have been had we sent them off to Eygpt for “questioning” as we did in the 90′s. (Hey, wasn’t Holder around in the 90′s)?
The terrorist and Jihad business should have its drawbacks, perhaps Gitmo and water sports are it.

Fascist Hyena:
On June 10, 2008 FBI special agent Cloonan testified before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on “coercive interrogation techniques,” who stated that he has interrogated members of Al Qaeda and that such techniques have “helped to recruit a new generation of jihadist martyrs”:
Agent Cloonan also stated:
“It is my belief, based on a 27 year career as a Special Agent and interviews with hundreds of subjects in custodial settings, including members of al Qaeda, that the use of coercive interrogation techniques is not effective.”

Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners
==========
You have to wonder at the concept of three men being water boarded inspiring men to go blow up Iraqi hospitals and children waiting for school buses.
I’m guessing before the other attacks- like the WTC, the USS Cole, the Kenyan embassy, the Tanzania embassy, and the Bali bombing- there was something else that motivated terrorist recruits.
I wonder what that was, and why it lost its mojo.

So we have the testimony of an FBI agent (not CIA) and an air force officer who won’t give us his real name, arrayed against the hudgment of five CIA directors whose tenures spanned twelve years. I’ll go with the latter, and the fact that we have routed Al Qaeda in Iraq, as being dispositive.

“…made us less safe rather than more safe, in major part because of its use by insurgents in both Afghanistan and Iraq as an effective recruitment tool.”
Jeez–I guess Harry Reid must have been right; we lost in Iraq, right?
I suppose I could offer, based on my own experience, that the perceived weakness of Barack Obama has been the number 1 recruting tool for the Taliban in Afghanistan since November.

“It was our freedom, democracy and principles.”
If that’s enough to motivate terrorists to mass murder, why not throw in a bit of torture, too? If it gives us good intelligence–and the great weight of the evidence is that it does–then by all means let’s do it.
Bin Laden made no mention of freedom, democracy or principles. He put the matter in the stark terms of strong horse vs. weak horse.

“Jack Bauer is fictional. The constitution is real.”
Not having watched a single second of Jack Bauer, I’ll take your word for it. Having studied constitutional law under Professor Paul Freund, I don’t need your word on the constitution one way or another.

Since most of the arguments on both sides cannot be definitively proven it seems like our adopted policies on these matters is going to be a judgment call. If a decision is going to be made on opinion alone, expert opinion, but opinion nonetheless, then why shouldn’t we err on the side of maintaining our principles? I think there should be more evidence before we abandon them.

I find it fascinating that many Americans were screwed over by everyone from fraudelent loan officers to crooked CEO’s losing much of their investments, retirement, and home values and we are investigating the interrogation techniques used on those who killed thousands. Where is the outrage over a lack of investigation of both business people and dirty politicans? The people in power during 9/11 were in a very unique and demanding situation. America wanted justice and wanted the adminstration to keep us safe. That is what they did. Lets go after the real criminals – the ones who stole money from us and now are being bailed out with more of our money.

Mr. Hyena: Given the large number of your neo-con compatriates who were carrying tea-bagging signs calling Mr. Obama a “fascist”, I would have expected you to change your blogging name. Finally, I thinkg Dr. Freund would have not allowed in his con law class, the technically unethical tactic of misstating your opponnent’s position, to make a successful counter-argument. A bit too much Nixonian non-denial denial. However, it did work for most of the last 8 years.

well, Bush and friends have their time line wrong with regard to getting information through torture that saved an attack in California, they can’t even get their stories or ‘facts’ straight….
what a joke, the desperation by the ‘right’ to justify torture, cover it up, and blame Sept 11th is obscene….
-use the SERE techniques that help prepare US forces to resist torture, as the technique to gain information without calling it torture..
that odor in the air is fear by Bush, Cheney their administration and ‘advisers’ as they are about to have their sordid history revealed, and there will be no hiding this time….Republicans look so foolish, they mumble, and make no sense at all as they are trying to defend the indefensible….
I don’t care how many Republicans & Democrats are involved in this directly, or indirectly, I want the facts… I want to know what went on and who broke the law…

The Bush White House began planning for torture in December 2001, set up a program to develop the interrogation techniques by the next month, and the military and the CIA began training interrogators in coercive practices in early 2002, before they had any high-value al-Qaida suspects or any trouble eliciting information from detainees.
The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees.”
“We were focused on trying to establish a link between al Qaida and Iraq and we were not being successful in establishing a link between al Qaida and Iraq”

Is George Bush over law? Pls bring him to book; let him answer for his actions and inactions as then President.
You would understand torture when u hv bn tortured, or better still, understand what torture is like from the Nazis and slave masters!

“I think there are particular areas where some additional flexibility might be needed.”
Then exactly how is that different from the Bush policy in which a grand total of 3 terrorists were waterboarded?
These stories always start the same way- the umbrage is spelled out first and then right at the end they admit there are times that more leeway is needed.
Good grief.

America does not Torture! Are we going to blow up buildings, and cut others head off TOO……..then we’re no better than the Terrorists that engage in this ‘barbaric” behavior, are we? We, as Americans are better than this, and we Are the Leader of the Free World…Not the Leader of the “Rogue Nations”.

America Does Not Torture…..It is Against the LAW….U.S. wrote this doctrine and the Geneva Convention accepted and agreed to this. U.S. obviously WROTE this doctrine to protect Americans that are CAPTURED in “Rogue” nations….against this type of Abuse…So I guess that That Doctrine didn’t mean anything to the U.S., even when we wrote it. America Does Not Torture!!!!!!!

I would have taken that really hairy ugly terror leader down to the day spa for a severe back waxing.. I don’t know if he would have revealed anything, but it still would have been an improvement for his next arrest photo.

A consensus is needed as to whether these terrorists and insurgents are protected by the Geneva Convention or if they should be treated as criminals. Is there any other alternative?

“A consensus is needed as to whether these terrorists and insurgents are protected by the Geneva Convention or if they should be treated as criminals.”
If one reads the Geneva Convention as written, these guys are NOT protected.
And according them civil trials is a violation of the GC, which stipulates Military Tribunals for such criminals.

Drjohn-
The prohibition against torture is firmly established under international human rights law. It is prohibited by various treaties to which the United States is a party, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which the United States ratified in 1992, and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which the United States ratified in 1994. Article 7 of the ICCPR states that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The right to be protected from torture is non-derogable, meaning that it applies at all times, including during public emergencies or wartime.
International humanitarian law (the laws of war), which applies during armed conflict, prohibits the torture or other mistreatment of captured combatants and others in captivity, regardless of their legal status. Regarding prisoners-of-war, article 17 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 states: “No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.” Detained civilians are similarly protected by article 32 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The United States has been a party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions since 1955.
The United States does not recognize captured al-Qaeda members as being protected by the 1949 Geneva Conventions, although Bush administration officials have insisted that detainees will be treated humanely and in a manner consistent with Geneva principles. However, at minimum, all detainees in wartime, regardless of their legal status, are protected by customary international humanitarian law. Article 75 (“Fundamental Guarantees”) of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, which is recognized as restating customary international law, provides that “torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental” against “persons who are in the power of a Party to the conflict and who do not benefit from more favorable treatment under the [Geneva] Conventions,” shall “remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or military agents.” “[C]ruel treatment and torture” of detainees is also prohibited under common article 3 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which is considered indicative of customary international law.
(HRW & WashPo)

I repeat; Harman, Pelosi, Grahama and Rockefeller were apprised of what was transpiring. They did not object. Pelosi wanted to know if more could be done.
Congress twice refused to brand waterboarding as torture.
Those are the facts.
I think that these recrimination in the confort of distance from 9-11 are astonishingly unfair. I also think that if another attack occurs these discussions will end immediately.

Is this the reason why Everyone Resigned in the Bush Administration
Rumsfeld
powell
Ridge
They all resigned is this why Because they Knew they were BREAKING THE LAW And Shredding the Constitution?

Torture has been in existence as long as human being exists. Waterboarding is nothing new in history of human being, Bush and Cheney can not claim credit for this kind of torture to show that they are dedicated to the prevention of terrorist attack in US. The incident of 9/11 can be readily prevented by better airport security control, pilot arming and the use of air marshall.

I think if we are devoting all this time to this subject, we should be devoting equal time to the truly inhumane torture done to U.S. citizens, like filmed beheading of live people, you all should be forced to watch this. What if this were your son, dad of father? Even still, I have seen so many young children raped, strangled, stuffed in suitcases, and even buried alive. Yet they are not protected by our legislature or states. I have seen way more people tortured in thses ways than we waterboarded. Please do not hide behind the constitution and the so called horror of pouring water on a foreign combatant’s face when you can’t even comfront the truly greusome horrors at home.

“In other words, Americans in any town of this country could constitutionally be hung from the ceiling naked, sleep deprived, water-boarded, and all the rest — if the alleged national security justification was compelling.”
The individuals who were interrogated were not Americans. They were enemy combatants religiously devoted to the killing of Americans. If libs so no difference between Al-Zarqawi and an American citizen protected under the Bill of Rights, then we might as well just surrender the War on Terror now.

Well, war is war.
Nice guys lose wars.
It is us or them.
So, what is the point?
It is anti-american to witch-hunt CIA.

Tell Jose Padilla it’s claptrap.

Gee GW demanded a witch hunt and his party members didn’t started a witch hunt against him for demanding it.
Curious how – now – the party’s “Christian Nation, ethics and honesty, personal responsibility and accountability” mantra has faded into a deafening silence when the Hague isn’t a stop off for beer and sausages..
“I call on all governments to join with the United States… in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture.” -George W. Bush, 6/26/03

Jason, the constitutional problem lies in the idea that it is setting legal precedent that waterboarding and some of these other tactics are not torture, are not cruel and unusual punishment – which is banned by the Bill of Rights. If legal precedent is set that these activities not cruel and unusual punishment, then they could be used on Americans by police. Do you really want to be treated like this. Can you imagine what the police could have done, say, for example, to the lacrosse players at Duke who had been (falsely) accused of rape? What if they had waterboarded them 183 times each and they finally confessed to gangraping that woman, — if the defense is that as long as doctors and psychologists were supervising is wasn’t really that bad — Is that the America you really want us to be?

I strongly agree with the statement … We are Americans… We don’t torture. It does not matter whether torture worked or did not work. The point is the Constitution was violated & International laws were broken.
We do not torture, and torture is a crime, not a method. If you want to work for a government and want to torture someone, you need to find another country. Government employees take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. If you are a government official and torture someone, you have failed your oath to defend the U.S. Constitution and you have broken the law. We do not need or want people working in our government that conducted torture.
There is no way anyone can respect the CIA if it rewards torture interrogators with their job. Abscense of morality in any government agency will not result in respect, ether now or in the future. This controversy is not about legal opinions & the CIA its about the CYA mentality of the Bush Administration.
At the Nuremberg trials in 1946, the U.S., England, and France decided that just taking orders is not excuse for torture. Concentration Camp commander’s defended their actions as just taking orders. No doubt Nazi lawyers declared their actions both necessary and legal under German Third Reicht Law. At Nuremberg in 1946, the decision by the U.S., France, and England was unanimous, that a person is responsible for their own actions. No orders or shadow legality is a defense against a complete loss of morality. The trials at Nuremberg set the standard. Just taking orders does not give anyone, not even an American, the right to torture another person . We do not want our country to have Nazi morality standards.
I hope we still have today as much moral strength as our fathers that fought WWII to save our country and save our Constitution. If government officials today trash our Constitution to gain immediate ends, then we have lost any meaningful difference between our enemies and ourselves.
We are America, and We don’t torture. Our Constitution and our morality are worth far more than any information obtained from torture. The ends do not justify the means.
We are Americans, and We don’t torture. NO IF ANDS OR BUTS ABOUT IT ! See title 18 sec. 241 & 242 if you do torture, this is what you can expect from the law.
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights
This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).
It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.
——————————————————————————–
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

>>>>
I find it fascinating that many Americans were screwed over by everyone from fraudelent loan officers to crooked CEO’s losing much of their investments, retirement, and home values and we are investigating the interrogation techniques used on those who killed thousands. Where is the outrage over a lack of investigation of both business people and dirty politicans? The people in power during 9/11 were in a very unique and demanding situation. America wanted justice and wanted the adminstration to keep us safe. That is what they did. Lets go after the real criminals – the ones who stole money from us and now are being bailed out with more of our money.
Posted by: ms1236 | Apr 23, 2009 10:20:37 PM<<<<
Why don't you provide the legal basis for prosecuting these guys who stole the money, which incidentally was allowed by the same set of people being looked at today? And which news channels have you been watching that you have not heard the outrage? You must have very limited ability to understand simple logic. This is not an question about what we think is right. Or whether we want it to happen or not. In fact I personally dont care what happens to terrorist per se. This is not a judgement call. What is at issue is: Did the USA break the UNCAT law against torture? Did they twist and rewrite their own definition to allow torture? Who were the peole responsible? If the investigation showed complicit involvement by any number of the Bushies, should we follow the rule of the Law and punish them accordingly. Heck we just deported an 89 year old man who is thought to have committed serious war crimes, to Germany, keping him on life support so he can be tried!
You should pay attention to "Enough" and "dantheguy".

The GOP is just out right stupid.