Why Bush/Cheney chose to torture…..
The military agency that provided advice on harsh interrogation techniques for use against terrorism suspects referred to the application of extreme duress as "torture" in a July 2002 document sent to the Pentagon's chief lawyer and warned that it would produce "unreliable information."
What "unreliable information" did Bush/Cheney want produced?
"While we were there a large part of the time 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," Army psychiatrist Maj. Paul Burney is quoted in the Senate report as saying about Guantánamo. "The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish this link … there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results."
What "unreliable information" did Bush/Cheney-ordered torture produce?
Al-Libi, an al-Qaeda operative, was interrogated by both the United States and Egypt, and—as was publicly reported—tortured by Egyptian authorities. During these sessions, he claimed that Iraq had trained members of al-Qaeda to use chemical and biological weapons.
….in January 2004, al-Libi recanted his confession. He said that he had invented the information because he was afraid of being further abused by his interrogators. The CIA withdrew the intelligence.
Which "torture memo" tactic was used on al-Libi?
As al-Libi recounted, he was stuffed into a box less than 20 inches high. When the box was opened 17 hours later, al-Libi said he was given one final opportunity to ‘tell the truth.’ He was knocked to the floor and ‘punched for 15 minutes.’ It was only then that, al-Libi said, he made up the story about Iraqi weapons training
How was the "unreliable information", produced through torturing, used by Bush/Cheney?
the account extracted from al-Libi was used by President Bush as the prime basis for a key assertion in his Oct. 7, 2002, speech in Cincinnati about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime. "We've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and deadly gases," Bush said in the speech, just days before Congress voted on the White House-requested resolution authorizing the president to go to war against Iraq.
In his Feb. 5, 2003, speech to the U.N. Security Council, Powell made the same claim, referring for the first time to the United States government's source for the assertion. "I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these [chemical and biological] weapons to Al Qaeda," Powell said. "Fortunately, this operative is now detained, and he has told his story." Although Powell never identified the operative by name, CIA officials-and a Senate Intelligence Committee report-have since confirmed it was al-Libi.
When President George W. Bush ordered the 2006 transfer to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, of high-value detainees previously held in CIA custody, Libi was pointedly missing.
Libi was captured fleeing Afghanistan in late 2001, and he vanished into the secret detention system run by the Bush administration.
A former CIA high-value detainee, who provided bogus information that was cited by the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq war, has died in a Libyan prison, an apparent suicide, according to a Libyan newspaper.
Was al-Libi's tortured, and thus, unreliable confession doubted by intelligence officials?
The Defense Intelligence Agency and some analysts at the CIA had questioned the veracity of Libi's testimony, which was obtained after the prisoner was transferred to Egyptian custody for questioning by the CIA, according to Senate investigators.
The above information is the reason Richard Cheney is currently conducting a "torture saved lives" tour through American media. Chrissy Matthews keeps asking, "what's Cheney up to?" It doesn't take a PHD in nuclear fission to figure it out. Cheney says on his tour that he's talking now because he believes Obama, by ending torture, is making America less safe. Obviously, that's a whopper of a lie. The truth is that the case I've detailed above is now making Cheney's ass less safe, Cheney is fully aware of that fact, and he's trying, pre-emptively, to taint any potential jury pool. Cheney is doing his best to muddy up the "torture" waters in order to create "reasonable doubt."
There is not one doubt that Bush/Cheney ordered torture, and later "legalized torture" memos, to produce knowingly phony al-Qaeda/Iraq ties, later used to persuade Congress, the U.N. and the American people that there was an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein requiring our invasion and occupation.
There is also no doubt, now, that Bush/Cheney have proven to be far worst terrorists than Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden killed 3000 Americans on 9-11. Bush/Cheney have killed 4200 American soldiers, so far, in their terrorist attack on Iraq. Not to mention the hundred thousand dead Iraqi civilians.
There's only one just solution for all of this.
George W. Bush and Richard Cheney should be tried for treason, convicted based on overwhelming evidence and then hung from a rope until they are dead.
{ 22 comments… read them below or add one }
al-Libi was stuffed in a box so small that he couldn't even sit up in? I thought that was illegal according to the EI memos.
He was kept in there for 17 hours? I thought that was illegal according to the EI memos.
He was knocked to the ground and beaten for 15 minutes? I thought that was illegal according to the EI memos.
Wow Rev, I didn't realize all that happened under US custody… whichever Americans did those things should be prosecuted to the full extent of the appropriate laws.
You left out the most important fact from the Washinton Monthly piece you quoted. Its yet another example of your dishonesty. Selective quoting to distort a statement is pretty common among the loony left.
"Al-Libi, an al-Qaeda operative, was interrogated by both the United States and Egypt, and—as was publicly reported—tortured by Egyptian authorities."
So he wasn't subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques by Americans. He was tortured by Egyptians.
Rev,
Your talents are wasted on this blog. Obama should hire you to write the definitive book on American History. I am looking foreward to the Chapter entitled "Roosevelt and Truman the Real War Criminals of WWII" and all of us can learn why Carter was more responsible than Pol Pot for the genocide in Cambodia.
Meanwhile your love object is flushing our kids' futures down the toilet, Reverend. I can see why you're deflecting so obsessively.
Egyptians weren't after phony information in order to fraudulently lead it's country into an invasion of Iraq. Egyptians weren't asking about al-Qaeda/Iraq connections.
The CIA tortured al-Libi, they used the very techniques made "legal" later on in the sh*t memos. Rumsfeld and Cheney started the torture early 2002. They strategized the whole torture thing ahead of time as a way to excuse going into Iraq. They did. I know it's so disgraceful and treasonous that it's hard to distill and accept. But that's what they did. F*ck 'em.
Hey Rev, did the CIA infiltrate the egyptian prison? Or were they just dressed up as Egyptian Authorities? Also, which did the CIA create, aids or crack… or both!
Rev,
This is the best post you've written. You consisely explained what happened and the reasons behind them. The facts speak for themselves. It takes a lot of mental convolutions to avoid the conclusion that Bush and Cheney should go to jail.
That's why I think you will get a lot of response from the cognitive dissonance crowd as I see you already are.
pdt1420 doesn't care if torture results in good intelligence or anything else. He feels they should be tortured anyway. Pretty revealing, I'd say.
Roy is the only one so far to find a nit to pick. He's comforted by the fact that we didn't do the torture, choosing to farm it out to a country whose tyrant receives $2 billion of our tax dollars to play on our team.
angry conserv doesn't dispute anything. He's just angry.
larry d. being larry d. adds his patented 2 sentence snark. As Michelle Baughman says, "You da man!"
Buckle up.
Frank,
I am only disputing his absurd headline
angry conserv,
Inasmuch as bin Laden caused 3000 civilian deaths with his illegal attack and Bush has caused what is estimated to be as many as 1 million civilian deaths with his illegal attack, I think there is validity to the comparison. I know, Bush didn't target civilians and bin Laden did, but you've got to give the Shrub points for sheer numbers.
It's all absurd. Reverend I find that when I'm drinking heavily it's better to write it on paper then thinking about it after I sober up before posting.
Good one, frank. I hope this feel good issue makes you happier but really that's no way to go through life.
from the raping of the public by bush 1 through obama combined with the braindeath instigated from a culture that does not value intelligence this country is virtually dead. in 20 years people will be climbing the wall to get into canada, who btw with russia is going to make a killing off global warming.
Frank,
You seem to have the market cornered on cognitive dissonance.
How is the war illegal if it was approved by congress?
Your 1 million casualties is a made up figure. How many of those do you attribute to suicide bombers in Iraq?
You know that rendition was started under President Clinton right? So Bush is more evil than Bin Laden for continuing the policies of the previous administration? Why does Clinton get a pass on the rendition that took place during his administration?
We pay many countries to further our own interests (i.e. Pakistan) what difference does it make how much we pay them in this discussion? You throw this number out like some sort of revelation but it has nothing to do with the fact we didn't torture him.
I've heard the real casualty count is about 160,000.
And there were terrorist training camps in Iraq, just as Bush said.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
In addition, Al Libi's testimony was doubted by some U.S. officials back in 2002, BEFORE the Iraq War. Al Libi recanted his testimony in 2004, AFTER the Iraq War had already started. The Reverend may have a point here about Colin Powell using the Al Libi info in his 2003 presentation to the UN. That should not have been done (if it was done) when Al Libi's info was under question, but Al Libi's info hardly represented the totality of the U.S. intel, as the Reverend seems to imply. It was just one piece of intel out of many.
Also, let's not forget the REAL reason Al Libi was treated as he was. He was a SENIOR AL-QAEDA OPERATIVE connected with Bin Laden. He was running terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. The Reverend throws up so much smoke that you can almost lose sight of that.
frank is right. Dissonance all around.
"if it was done"…..what? It WAS done. And when you say "totality of intel"….are you talking about "curveball's" testimony? Atta in Prague? Which false intelligence are you referring to?
"treated as he was"…..because he was an international criminal? And torture is what we do to international criminals…even though it's unlawful?
And about the "training camps"….so now we are justified in invading and occupying another country, killing hundreds of thousands, because of one Iraqi criminal, Zarqawi? We invaded Iraq because of Zarqawi? It wasn't because Saddam posed an imminent threat with all his WMD's and nukes?
Bush/Cheney introduced torture, not to spare America from another attack, but to gather phony intelligence to use in a fraud-up to invade Iraq. That's what happened and deep down….you guys know I'm right.
The Iraq war was illegal because Bush/Cheney manipulated knowingly fraudulent intelligence, some of which was gathered by torture, to frighten Congress and the American people into going along. Not just illegal….evil.
"The Iraq war was illegal because Bush/Cheney manipulated knowingly fraudulent intelligence, some of which was gathered by torture, to frighten Congress and the American people into going along. Not just illegal….evil."
This entire sentence is a lie and you should be embarassed for writing it.
Members of the intelligence committees recive the same intelligence that the president does so they were getting the same information and yet they voted for the war. Also, there was an investigation that cleared the administration.
"No hard evidence has surfaced to support claims that Bush somehow manipulated the findings of intelligence analysts. In fact, two bipartisan investigations probed for such evidence and said they found none. So Dean's claim that intelligence was "corrupted" is unsupported."
Source: http://www.factcheck.org/iraq_what_did_congress_know_and_when.html
First, Roy….what select committee members knew is not the question before us. I realize that Republicans want that to be the question, but it's not. Bush/Cheney initiated torture, which is a violation of law. The Office of legal Counsel does not write American law, Congress does.
Second…..you are behind on the latest Senate finding about how Bush/Cheney misused intelligence. The latest Senate committee found that, indeed, Bush/Cheney lied and propagandized the American people on several occasions.
Jay Rockefeller's introduction to the Senate Intelligence Committee findings….http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775
“Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence,” Rockefeller said. “In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”
“It is my belief that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq, and used the 9/11 attacks by al Qa’ida as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11. Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses.
“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate.
Instead of being embarassed, Roy, I am very proud that I have it correct.
Rev -It is correct in your mind and the the minds of the far left conspiracy sites but that doesn't make it the truth. We will probably never know the truth because the Dems won't risk their power. We need to open the briefings from all of the meetings before the war, like Cheney wants. The Dems won't even take responsibility for ruining the economy and sending us into a full blown recession by letting gas prices get so out of control that the people couldn't afford their mortgages. Remember how everyone was being warned that they need to watch their finances because most were 1 or 2 paychecks away from disaster? Well the Dems did the people in didn't they? They wouldn't even consider working on fuel prices until Obama was assured a victory. Prices didn't go down until Bush decided not to renew the drilling ban. Meanwhile Nancy and Harry and Charlie left while rome was burning.
Hey frank, did you just say I'm for torture?
Where'd you come up with that one?
Roy,
It wasn't just Congress's approval that Bush needed. He also needed UN approval since, as a signatory to the UN charter, we agreed to not go to war unless attacked. He needed to have two resolutions passed and failed.
The figure of 1 million casualties that I cited as an upper estimate was from a study published in the British medical journal, The Lancet. They apparently used established methods to arrive at their conclusions. There were no suicide bombers before we invaded.
If Clinton established the rendition program, he should be held accountable for it. This isn't a Democrats-good, Republicans-bad issue. Anyone related to these crimes should be held accountable regardless of party.
I suppose the fact that we keep Mubarack in power via $2 billion tax dollars per year is tangential, but the fact that we have contracted out torture does not absolve any responsibility. If you hired a hit man to kill your neighbor, you would be held as guilty as the assassin.
Mr. King,
Shouldn't you, in the interest of fairness, inform people that the Weekly Standard is published by William Kristol, charter member of PNAC, and a cheerleader for war with Iraq since 1998. Perhaps readers will remember his tenure as an op-ed writer for the NY Times, shortened by his inability to discern the truth.
Rev,
Interesting that you quoted Jay Rockefeller, a member of the Intelligence Committee. Here's another quote from the honorable Mr. Rockefeller, who, btw, voted FOR the Iraq War.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." — Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
The Reverend is still pretending that the Iraq intelligence originated from Bush/Cheney. The Reverend is still wrong. The intelligence originated from the CIA and other national security agencies. The Bush administration used it. The same intelligence conclusions about Saddam's wmd existed during the Clinton administration.
Get over it. In another month, you'll convince yourself that Saddam and Al Qaeda were really the good guys. In fact, going by the title of this post, you already have.
Is that supposed to be a response to Rockefeller's introduction of the Senate Intelligence findings concerning Bush's use of pre-war intelligence?
And Rockefeller, in your quote, doesn't say anything about having to attack Iraq.
Bush/Cheney cherrypicked intelligence, tortured prisoners for bogus intelligence, lied and then exaggerated all of it to scare Congress into passing the War Resolution. That's what happened….if you can't admit that at this point, you are either willingly stubborn for no apparent reason or a dishonest broker in the debate. The question is….why? Do you simply hate liberals that much?