Comments on: A Bush EO on Torture?

By: Rayne

Rayne — Sun, 03 May 2009 03:49:51 +0000

Ah, now that was amusing. I’ve been hopscotching around Jane Mayer’s The Dark Side for a month, rather than sitting down and reading it; I finally sat down to do so tonight, and voila, there’s the same conclusion about the February 7, 2002 memo from Bush (p. 124-125). In her second reference to the document, Mayer refers to it as an order as well.

The odd part about the memo is the opening line, a throw-away, but at the same time acknowledging the joined of the roots of the aspens:

“Our recent extensive discussions regarding the status of al Qaeda and Taliban detainees…”

How nice for Addington he is not listed as a recipient of the memo.

Speaking of which, I think we need to FOIA the SOA manuals — or see if there are any in the Archives. I’m not done with them, but I suspect the content I’m working on are not the real deal. You know, nifty tricks with kerning and the like.

By: Jeff Kaye

Jeff Kaye — Sat, 02 May 2009 17:46:06 +0000

Reread your article, and re my last comment, see you came to same conclusion. Such is the power of unconscious memory!

By: Jeff Kaye

Jeff Kaye — Sat, 02 May 2009 15:46:35 +0000

A late addition to this tremendous discussion. But when I looked at the DoJ OIG citation of the e-mail in question (the one wherein Gonzales said the agent was “mistaken”), I noticed that the report followed the request re the definition of abuse up the FBI chain of command to the General Council, Valerie Caproni. No one disputed, nor did the Inspector General report itself, that there was a Presidential EO as described. Instead, when asked, Caproni shot back:

Does it answer his question to say that conduct that is known to be authorized need not be reported?

While not definitive in any sense, does this not give inferential evidence for the existence of the EO as cited (and cited in some detail, I would note) by the agent?

By: Rayne

Rayne — Fri, 01 May 2009 23:41:23 +0000

Before the comments timer runs out on this post and it drops altogether off EW’s page, I should probably bring up the Bush document which may best serve as an executive order, without actually being one.

On February 7, 2002, Bush issued a memo (PDF) to what for all intents and purposes is the National Security Council. The understandings and decisions memorialized in the memo emanate from his role as C-in-C, based upon DOJ opinion of Jan. 22, 2002, and USAG opinion of Feb. 1, 2002.

The memo reads like an executive order, yet it is not numbered or recorded as one. Bush says,

As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.

Note this does not include other entities holding detainees, including CIA or contractors, only the Armed Forces.

There’s a lot more in the document which might really be the best roadmap to building a case against torturers and those who authorized torture.

The Bush document was declassified on June 17, 2004, the same day Jack Goldsmith announced his resignation; it appeas to have been faxed to “Legal” that day as well.

By: Rayne

Rayne — Fri, 01 May 2009 00:57:46 +0000

It would be the past repeating itself, a parallel but shadow chain of command.

It happened with the Phoenix Program during Vietnam, and Cheney tried it before under Poppy with Operation Scorpion, running a secret op within DoD.

These assholes from Iran/Contra have simply refined the same games they’ve been playing all along their entire lives — this time, though, instead of being the minority Team B, they had all the power and authority of a majority Team A. No minority report was permitted or suffered.

By: Mary

Mary — Fri, 01 May 2009 00:37:27 +0000

One part of the context on all of this is that Taguba has said over and over that he was shut down on his efforts to include an investigation of Military Intelligence and contractors together with the Military Police investigation that they did let him conduct. He says all the worst things he was hearing were MI, but he wasn’t allowed to go there and he has called over and over for an investigation/report on MI.

But he’s the kind of guy Obama shuns. Someone who did do the right thing. It’s hard to keep the group hug up with the people who didn’t do the right thing unless you are willing to spit on the guys who sacrificed to do what was right.

By: JasonLeopold

JasonLeopold — Fri, 01 May 2009 00:20:33 +0000

thanks so much for that info.

By: pmorlan

pmorlan — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 23:11:20 +0000

I hear you. Wayne Madsen may very well be right that Cheney was involved (I think so too) but until I see actual evidence I’m not willing to automatically believe that he is right on this one.

By: lysias

lysias — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:55:32 +0000

I remember being skeptical when Wayne Madsen reported that, when Cheney visited Poland for the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, he made a side trip to a secret CIA prison in Poland. Then, a year or so later, it came out that there really was a CIA secret prison at that location. And now we learn that that is where Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded.

By: pmorlan

pmorlan — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:50:25 +0000

Thank you very much for supplying the link. I agree with you that there is no evidence cited other than Wayne Madsen’s view. I think there are a lot of unanswered questions about the Minot incidents but I want to see evidence, not just opinion.