Cheney and Others Approved Abusive Interrogation Techniques

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:14:42 AM EST
Tags: torture (all tags)

Share This:

ABC News and the Associated Press report Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, George Tenet, John Ashcroft, Colin Powell and others held high level meetings about harsh interrogation techniques and ultimately approved them.

The meetings were held in the White House Situation Room in the years immediately following the Sept. 11 attacks. Attending the sessions were Cheney, then-Bush aides Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

[A] former intelligence official described Cheney and the top national security officials as deeply immersed in developing the CIA's interrogation program during months of discussions over which methods should be used and when.

More...

One of those who had a problem -- John Ashcroft:

The ABC News report portrayed Ashcroft as troubled by the discussions, despite agreeing that the interrogations methods were legal.

"Why are we talking about this in the White House?" the network quoted Ashcroft as saying during one meeting. "History will not judge this kindly."

Crooks and Liars has video of the ABC Evening News report where this was revealed. See also Attaturk at Firedogake and Marcy at Empty Wheel.

< Philadelphia "Street Money" As an Issue in Primary Race | How The Political Media Works >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Cheney and Others Approved Abusive Interrogation Techniques | 49 comments (49 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

This to me (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by madamab on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:17:04 AM EST

is the big news of the day.

We've replaced the old Tricky Dick Nixon with the new Tricky Dick Cheney. And the new version is definitely NOT an improvement.

AMEN (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by Deadalus on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:20:22 AM EST

Thanks Jeralyn for covering this. Big Media, and many blogs, are too preoccupied with Hillary's laugh and Obama's eating habits to discuss this today....we have criminals in the White House, and we're too busy bickering about who stuck whose foot in whose mouth today. It plays right into the Republican game--we should all take notice. Putting our differences on Obama and Clinton aside, neither of them would tolerate this kind of crap.

[ Parent ]

Have the questions been asked and answered? (none / 0) (#5)
by po on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:30:24 AM EST

"neither of them would tolerate this kind of crap"

I would certainly like to believe your statement is true, but at the moment, and given what has transpired over the past year of Democratic "control" of Congress, I'm not so certain the next administration won't just modify slightly and / or build upon what everyone has allowed the Unitary Executive to do. It's the nature of the system and the price to be paid for setting the precedent by not telling W, Cheney, et al no, and if you do it you're going to jail. Like time out, only for grown ups.

[ Parent ]

No future president (none / 0) (#15)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:59:23 AM EST

is seriously going to give up powers he/she has when they go into office, courtesy of the previous administration. I agree with that.

Since Congress did nothing about it when they had the chance, I think the "unitary executive" precedent is here to stay, and it will depend on the character of each new administration to use it or refrain from using it.

That said, I fully trust either Obama or Clinton, and possibly even McCain, to act immediately to abolish torture, and Clinton and Obama to do whatever they think they can to block its ever coming back. It's probably too soon now, but I would think a very specific constitutional amendment would be in order.

[ Parent ]

Gyrfalcon (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Deadalus on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:59:14 PM EST

I hope you're right and I hope that Democrats will pressure whoever the next president is to scale back the executive power.

Also, add habeas corpus to that!

[ Parent ]

Hillary has said that she is going to (none / 0) (#32)
by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:08:53 PM EST

repeal all of Bush's Constitution skirting signing statements on Day 1. If she wins the nom and the WH...we'll see if she does.

[ Parent ]

: I was wondering (none / 0) (#34)
by waldenpond on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:18:34 PM EST

about those and disappointed that no one had said whether this was possible. Does someone actually go through all of the signings detach the offending signing statement and shred it so that they can never be referenced? I doubt it.

[ Parent ]

Yes, thanks for covering this--someone at Corrente (none / 0) (#40)
by jawbone on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:44:06 PM EST

noted that at Memeorandum, lots of left blogs initially linked to the article--and then there was...nothing.

No calls to write LTEs or watch for and link to local editorials. Nothing.

Maybe the MCM will continue to cover this, but I'm not holding my breath.

And getting the Dem candidates on record about this sounds like a really good idea.

BTW, can we impeach Bybee over this? Bush? Cheney? Seems to me lots of BushCo folk should not be able to leave the country after they leave office. Indict them and then get them to someplace which will prosecute them.

(Note: I know nothing about international law and how whether they can be indicted elsewhere and picked up if they're out of the country...but I'd love to see it happen.)

[ Parent ]

What are the consequences? (5.00 / 4) (#4)
by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:29:48 AM EST

Will there be consequences or will they just walk away. I still hold that unless we have an outing and a cleansing of all this Presidents will have a carte blanche to do these things.

Interesting that Aschroft was the voice of dissent. Maybe his values were not just for political expediency.

They will walk away (5.00 / 4) (#10)
by madamab on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:39:52 AM EST

because the first thing Cheney did was to corrupt the Justice Department, and Bush made sure to appoint as many right-wing federal judges as possible.

They knew they were going to break the law. They knew they were going to torture and warrantlessly wiretap. They were wiretapping before 9/11 and their excuses for doing so have been proven to be lies.

Unless Pelosi puts impeachment back on the table, we will have to rely on the International community in order to get accountability for BushCo's crimes.

What a terrible state of affairs.

[ Parent ]

Is it weird or what (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:01:33 PM EST

that John Ashcroft turns out to have been the only member of this administration with the slightest whiff of honor and morality?

[ Parent ]

Utterly bizarre. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by madamab on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:04:32 PM EST

He also refused to sign off on warrantless wiretapping.

And he has a lovely singing voice, too! ;-)

[ Parent ]

Ashcroft's singing voice (none / 0) (#20)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:09:47 PM EST

Aaiiieeee! ("Let the eeeeeegulll soar...")

He's a more interesting character than I had given him credit for, that's for sure.

[ Parent ]

Maybe You Don't Like (none / 0) (#30)
by squeaky on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:01:05 PM EST

His choice of music, but his singing is one of the few things that is undisputedly very high quality, imo.

[ Parent ]

: Oh, my goodness! (none / 0) (#44)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:59:25 PM EST

No, it isn't! His singing is flat and wobbly. There is, or was, a half-decent pop instrument in there somewhere once, but he has no clue how to actually sing, so he's wrecked it.

[ Parent ]

I don't know about that (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:39:20 PM EST

Ashcroft's complaint seems to have been about discussing torture at the White House, not with actual torture.

By the Balkinization has some good posts on this. Say it ain't so Colin and Perhaps A Truth Commission.

I am afraid the commentators there are right. Nothing will happen.

Here is my nightmare of how it goes down.

Sometime after the election- late December- Bush will issue blanket pardons for the underlings involved in the name of national security. The evening before inauguration Dana Perrino will announce Bush has resigned and CJ Roberts has sworn in Dick Cheney (who was pardoned about an hour earlier) as President. Then President Cheney will pardon Bush.

One last giant Friedman Unit to all of us.

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
[ Parent ]

You and I have the same nightmare. (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by madamab on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:55:05 PM EST

Again, we should have impeached these treasonous, criminal bastards a long time ago. No pardons. 100% accountability.

A lefty pipe dream, I guess.

[ Parent ]

: All the more reason to impeach Cheney first (5.00 / 3) (#27)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:57:02 PM EST

And refuse to confirm a successor VP.
"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
[ Parent ]

Yes (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by squeaky on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:57:55 PM EST

He was just protecting the Administration by suggesting that this kind of discussion should not be traceable to the WH. Tenent knew that blaming a rogue CIA would be the next latest fashion and was not going to have any of it. He forced a paper trail from top, and Ashcroft did not like that.

[ Parent ]

Pardons don't matter... (none / 0) (#35)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:30:16 PM EST

...to the World Court. These f*#ks will be fair game once they are out of office and step outside the US.

I'm hopeful that there are some places that would be thrilled to see this bunch face some measure of justice, especially if they get off here.

[ Parent ]

: You planning on rendentioning them (none / 0) (#39)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:31:46 PM EST

to the Hague?
There is a reason Henry the K never leaves the country.
"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
[ Parent ]

Honor and morality? Or just realization what they (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by jawbone on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:46:40 PM EST

were doing was clearly illegal?

That seems to be the issue--he did, after all, go along with everything presented to him in the group of Principals.

He just didn't want it talked about inside the White House.

Big difference.

[ Parent ]

: Well, I said just a whiff... (none / 0) (#45)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:01:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I wish I had something more intelligent to say (none / 0) (#23)
by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:14:39 PM EST

about all this. It's deeply disturbing we've come to this point; I don't know where we go from here. Yes there ought to be indictments. But those are likely to divide the country, with conservatives arguing this was necessary to protect Americans, and accusing those who'd attempt to enforce the law traitors. I'm afraid the principal of respect for the rule of law is at a nadir in this country.

[ Parent ]

old news, but still big (none / 0) (#3)
by po on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:26:52 AM EST

Probably the biggest news in a generation. Here we have the POTUS and all his high-level minions in the "Unitary Executive", huddled in the White House, breaking 200 + years of American principles and decades of international law (made US law threw the working of that gd piece of paper the US Constitution) so as to authorize "enhanced interrogation techniques" that Japanese and German soldiers were tried for after WWII.

They authorized torture. Plain and simple and simply astounding.

And what will Congress, now ostensibly headed by Democrats, do with this information? I'll bet nothing, least not until next year. Their electioneering. Ashcroft was only half right; not only history, but the god they all allegedly believe in and fear, will not look kindly on them. Neither should the American People (if they exist any more)

The POTUS was not generally involved. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by dianem on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:33:09 AM EST

The only elected official mentioned here is Cheney, and people didn't really vote for him, they voted for Bush. This is more of an example of what happens when Americans elect a charismatic but unqualified leader who then gives the reins of the nation over to people who know how to run the nation but are not answerable to the people.

[ Parent ]

You are quite naive to believe that W (none / 0) (#9)
by po on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:38:52 AM EST

did not attend one or more sessions and / or did not know about what was going on. There is absolutely no reason not to believe that W was not there. In this instance, I want proof of that negative before I believe it. But the records that would prove where W was during the times this group met have likely been lost, destroyed or copied over.

[ Parent ]

Plausible deniability (none / 0) (#13)
by Daryl24 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:49:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Good luck on that one (none / 0) (#14)
by po on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:58:59 AM EST

This story essentially obliterates the idea the W could deny knowing what these individuals were up to. They are his inner circle. As I stated before, his schedule and the schedules of all the folks involved will assist us in learning whether W was present. I see absolutely no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt at this moment in time and must seriously question anyone who, at this late in the game, would do so.

[ Parent ]

: I agree (none / 0) (#43)
by Daryl24 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:59:27 PM EST

he knew what was going on but they'll all say he didn't. That's going to be a tough one to crack.

[ Parent ]

erm (none / 0) (#16)
by manys on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:00:17 PM EST

Okay, I'm disappointed it took TL two days to mention anything about this story, but here we are.

There is absolutely no reason not to believe that W was not there.

There is also no reason (yet) to believe it. I mean, you can believe anything you want, people have believed that a passing comet was going to take them away to heaven, but that didn't actually happen.

In this instance, I want proof of that negative before I believe it.

This is absolutely hysterical. How do you propose this proof of a negative to occur? Will it be the first time ever? What form might this proof take, perhaps some incontrovertibly unforgeable video of Bush in some other location, complete with xrays of his head so that we know he doesn't have a secret earphone microphone with which to participate? Seriously, if you're going to throw around "I need proof of a negative," then you should at least step up to describing the level of proof that you're going to actually need. Anything less is just more blather about Obama's bowling.

[ Parent ]

I did tell you what proof they could produce (none / 0) (#21)
by po on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:10:20 PM EST

Schedules, calendars, notes of meetings, etc. All the information that the Unitary Executive is required, by laws passed by Congress, to gather and retain but, throughout this administration, conveniently hasn't. Because they have failed to follow the law and have destroyed evidence which could either exonerate or implicate them, the presumption under the law is that the destruction occurred because they knew that not destroying the evidence would be bad, i.e. the fact finder is allowed to presume the worst. So, I'll presume the worst and the American people, it seems, will keep on drinking the Kool-Aid and believe that their fearless(fearful) leader didn't have a clue.

[ Parent ]

Step-taking (none / 0) (#36)
by manys on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:14:44 PM EST

By your estimation that they have destroyed evidence, what's going to stop them from forging those schedules and notes? I guess even more to the point, how does your desired outcome account for this possibility?

And isn't "the fact finder is allowed to presume the worst" another way of saying "guilty until proven innocent?" I don't like what's going on either, but this "ends justify the means" logic is the same one used by those you hope to convict. Not good.

[ Parent ]

it's not guilty until proven innocent (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by po on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:25:39 PM EST

it's legal presumptions and what happens to those presumptions once a party is found to have committed spoliation of evidence. If there ever was a trial and evidence was presented that someone in the UE destroyed, or altered, documents that would show where the players were when these nice little meetings happened, then the fact finder would be allowed and instructed to make an inference adverse to the players. It happens all the time in the law. Just curious, do you have any legal experience / education?

Nothing will stop someone from destroying or altering evidence. Nothing will stop someone from breaking the law. Neither of these statements mean that we, the People, should not try and hold criminals responsible for their crimes -- even if the criminals were elected or appointed by the highest elected officials in the land. But that is so pre-9/11, I know.

[ Parent ]

: Nice ad hominem (none / 0) (#42)
by manys on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:38:36 PM EST

My level of legal education and experience is not germane to this topic. I do like the way you presume crimes that miraculously support your perspective on this, but without the evidence you're so sure exists (please post any identification of the FOIA requests you've surely submitted already) you are not going to be able to get a conviction on anything.
So, rather than the petulant attacks that greet those in this thread that don't 110% agree with you, maybe you can supply a little help: how do you plan on securing the evidence you're so sure exists? Hopefully it's more than sending ranty emails to your Congresspeople.

[ Parent ]

Triple negatives? (none / 0) (#31)
by dianem on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:07:05 PM EST

"There is absolutely no reason not to believe that W was not there."

It's friday. Could you please translate this? I think it means the same as "There is reason to believe that W was not there", but I'm not entirely sure, because saying this doesn't make sense in the context of what you said.

[ Parent ]

: whatever, it's friday (none / 0) (#33)
by po on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:12:42 PM EST

and I, apparently unlike many others, am royally ticked that this has gone on for so long with absolutely nothing having been done. Go correct my English and repost if you want. If not, say and believe as you want.

[ Parent ]

From Think Progress... (none / 0) (#47)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:33:55 PM EST

...via ABC:

'President Bush says he knew his top national security advisors discussed and approved specific details about how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, according to an exclusive interview with ABC News Friday.

"Well, we started to connect the dots, in order to protect the American people." Bush told ABC News White House correspondent Martha Raddatz. "And, yes, I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved."'

[ Parent ]

A couple of things... (none / 0) (#6)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:32:35 AM EST

First, thanks for taking time out of your regularly scheduled partisan posting to cover this.

Second, "Attending the sessions were Cheney, then-Bush aides Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.". There's your list of defendents who need to brought up on charges at the Hague.

I can only hope that we get a Democrat in the WH who will do something about this. History should not view this kidndly, nor should anyone in this country or the World.

I think the consequences should be... (none / 0) (#8)
by mike in dc on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:38:14 AM EST

...that the next AG investigates and determines they're all war criminals, and the new president roundly condemns them all but says he will spare them from prosecution, for the sake of "national unity". Avoids the "partisan witch hunt" accusations, and finalizes the historical/public judgment of the previous administration.

Yes, I know that isn't as satisfactory as mounting their heads as trophies on the ol' Wall of Justice, but in a lot of ways it's more effective to hold them out for public scorn without martyring them in the eyes of wingnuts everywhere. On the other hand, maybe they'll be martyrs to the wingnuts regardless, so it might be worthwhile to prosecute the whole lot of 'em.

I agree with this part: (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by madamab on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:42:15 AM EST

On the other hand, maybe they'll be martyrs to the wingnuts regardless, so it might be worthwhile to prosecute the whole lot of 'em.

Yup. Don't worry about the wingnuts, they're insane. They made a hero out of Scooter Libby, fuhgodsake. Nuff said.

If Ford hadn't pardoned Nixon, the zombies from his Administration (Cheney, Rummy) might not be infesting the government today.

Accountability over "unity" any day, I say.

[ Parent ]

: AMEN!! (none / 0) (#19)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:06:13 PM EST

"If Ford hadn't pardoned Nixon, the zombies from his Administration (Cheney, Rummy) might not be infesting the government today.
Accountability over "unity" any day, I say."
If Congress had been able to locate its bollocks, Bushco would have been impeached, which is the only way this kind of thing can really be stopped. The only option left is post-administration prosecution. Our "checks and balances" government is utterly vulnerable to a ruthless and immoral administration. Impeachment and/or prosecution are the only hope of restoring it for the future.

[ Parent ]

Really (none / 0) (#12)
by po on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:45:23 AM EST

for violating their oaths of office, destroying the Constitution, providing aid and comfort to the enemy by tarnishing America's image in the world for decades and giving them justification to torture US troops, you think these kind people should just be allowed to walk away . . . hmmmm, seems to me that this is exactly the kind of thinking that has brought us to where we are today.

The punishment for treason includes the death penalty. Why should they face anything less? After all, isn't the GOP all about taking responsibility for your actions?

[ Parent ]

Can't you just imagine (none / 0) (#22)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:11:33 PM EST

the thrill going up Cheney's leg while he's developing instructions about who's allowed to do what to which part of whose anatomy at Gitmo?

(Scuse me a moment while I go upchuck)

Why it's not too late for impeachment. (none / 0) (#24)
by ctrenta on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:32:05 PM EST

OK. How much more obvious can these impeachable offenses be? It's now like they're serving to us on a silver platter. ABC News blatantly confirmed these crimes.

Still think impeachment is a waste of time and too late to do it? Think again.

Watch part I

Watch part II

Squeaky, this means you man!

You Are Dreaming (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by squeaky on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:17:55 PM EST

Let me know once Lieberman, Nelson and other Bush lovers are on your side, then I will consider impeachment a possibility. It is a waste of time and money which is the least of it. Winning in 08 is more important.

Bush or Cheney cannot be impeached once they leave office.

I do not disagree that they are all a bunch of criminals.

[ Parent ]

: OK, so give up then? (none / 0) (#48)
by ctrenta on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:31:48 PM EST

Sorry. Some of us are not going down the "Good German" path and hope that things will just get better in the future.
What is your solution to hold them accountable? You never answered the question. IMO, elections don't count. That's letting them off the hook.

[ Parent ]

The Silver Lining (none / 0) (#46)
by Chimster on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:22:47 PM EST

Condoleezza Rice is one of the crew. If that doesn't hurt her chance of being a McCain VP, I don't know what does. She may have kissed away her chances because of independents and Republican moderates. Yay!

Folks.. (none / 0) (#49)
by ctrenta on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:37:20 PM EST

... I hear a lot of opinion about how nothing can be done to stop this (or them) and not enough talk about organizing about what we can do and why we can't afford not to do anything except b**ch and moan about how nothing's going to get done. Not if we keep talking like this. Words only get you so far. Action gets you much further.

What is it that we want to do to stop this? Do we want accountability? How should we go about this? What are our tactics? How can we mae this work? This is what the discussion should be about and quite frankly, I thought this was the orginal intent of blogging, discussion that leads to action!