April 10, 2008

They Approved

ABC news reported that:

In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News.

The so-called Principals who participated in the meetings also approved the use of "combined" interrogation techniques -- using different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time -- on terrorist suspects who proved difficult to break, sources said.

Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.

ABC defines "the principals" as:

At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

I wonder if Secretary of State Rice is still looking to be picked as McCain's VP. Time will tell.

Hidden deeper in the article are some tantalizing details. Like this:

Lawyers in the Justice Department had written a classified memo, which was extensively reviewed, that gave formal legal authority to government interrogators to use the "enhanced" questioning tactics on suspected terrorist prisoners. The August 2002 memo, signed by then head of the Office of Legal Counsel Jay Bybee, was referred to as the so-called "Golden Shield" for CIA agents, who worried they would be held liable if the harsh interrogations became public.

Old hands in the intelligence community remembered vividly how past covert operations, from the Vietnam War-era "Phoenix Program" of assassinations of Viet Cong to the Iran-Contra arms sales of the 1980s were painted as the work of a "rogue agency" out of control.

But even after the "Golden Shield" was in place, briefings and meetings in the White House to discuss individual interrogations continued, sources said. Tenet, seeking to protect his agents, regularly sought confirmation from the NSC principals that specific interrogation plans were legal.

And there's a quotation from Ashcroft making the rounds of the internets:

Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.

But take a look at the context of that line in the ABC piece:

He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.

According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."

So his problem was not with the "enhanced techniques" but with the fact that they were discussing them in the White House.

War Crimes - pure and simple.

But hey, let's talk somemore about Reverend Wright.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

John K. says: LOL LOL LOL Dr. Rice never asked to be considered to be VP. This is a Sen. Clinton plant. LOL You left wingers fall for anything. You even believed Hillary Clinton was shot at by snipers in Bosnia even when they had footage disproving it.

Anonymous said...

John K. says: Look at my winkie! Lookie! Lookie!

Anonymous said...

John K. says: We should talk more about Rev Wright and Rev Meeks. You left wingers expected me to believe the Clinton sniper story, now you expect me to believe that a guy who donated $27,500 to Rev Wright did not hear his sermons. You left wingers will believe anything as long as it furthers the agenda.

Anonymous said...

John K. says: Look at me! Look at my dinky! Lookie! Lookie!

Social Justice NPC Anti-Paladin™ said...

War Crimes - pure and simple.
Are they war crimes under the Geneva Conventions or "International Law"?
Because the Gitmo residents are not entitled to Geneva Convention protections.
And Congress just overturned that decision, and told the Court to but out. One of the reasons why…well, You quoted this bit, but apparently, didn’t catch it:

They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

If the party does NOT accept and apply the conventions, the other parties are not bound by them. Convention protections are reciprocal.

So much for that argument.

Anonymous said...

Actually, they are war crimes under American standards. We have hung enemies and thrown our own people in jail for doing what you and Dick Cheney think of as fun.

Anonymous said...

It probably is lost in the lather concerning the Ford-Lamar episode, but I sense that we have reached a milestone today: The loser who shadows John K. has become more annoying than John K. himself.

Carry on, irritants.

Anonymous said...

Are we to be surprised on this story?

Anonymous said...

John Yoo!?!?!?!

Heir to the Throne is using an argument by JOHN "The 4th Amendment is meaningless because we say so" YOO to bolster his position?

Tells you everything you need to know about HTTT's arguing skills.

Anonymous said...

And the fact that he doesn't reveal his source says quite a bit about his honesty. This is typical angry Neocon obfuscation, distortion, and sleight of hand.

I will not call them scum. That would be an insult to scum.