« McCain: Bewitched, Bothered & Bewildered
Suspended Talk Show Host Randi Rhodes Quits Air America (UPDATED) »
Torturing from the Top
See, it’s not all about John Yoo. The U.S. didn’t just start torturing its detainees because a government lawyer said it was okay, or because some executive-branch extremist like David Addington determined that anything and everything was permissible in a time of war, or because some dim-witted troops at Abu Ghraib just didn’t know any better. At some point, early on, a decision to allow torture, to enable it, must have been made — and it must have been made at the highest levels of government. To put it another way, the decision to turn America into a nation that tortures must have been made at the top. The so-called “principals” must have signed off on it and Bush himself must have signed off on it.
And, it seems, they did just that. Here’s ABC News:
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.
*****
The advisers were members of the National Security Council’s Principals Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise President Bush on issues of national security policy.
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.
As the national security adviser, Rice chaired the meetings, which took place in the White House Situation Room and were typically attended by most of the principals or their deputies.
That’s right — not underlings like Yoo, not lawyers and academics, not bureaucrats and soldiers, but the very top officials in the U.S. government: Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Tenet, and Ashcroft. They signed off on it. They were the enablers of torture. They were the ones who turned America into a nation that tortures.
And they must be held accountable.
(Reality check: They won’t be. First, there’s the national security barrier — the details won’t get out. Second, Congress isn’t about to do anything — consider the do-nothingness of the post-2006 Democratic Congress. Third, while a Justice Department staffed with Obama or Clinton appointees could launch an aggressive investigation, it is unlikely that such a seemingly partisan political investigation, however legitimate in reality, would get very far.)
opinions powered by SendLove.to
9 Responses to “Torturing from the Top”
Aside from the repugnance of the issue, this micro-managing Principals' Committee is sheer stupidity.
You've really worked yourself up into a lather over nothing – again.
Since this committee has been in existence since 1989, what do you think they talked about during the Clinton years, sexual positions? Does that statement sound ludicrous to you? It does to me. But, the same report could have been filed, including as much 'proof' of the conclusions that the ABC News piece draws, to support my statement if it were the year 1999.
Reality Check, there is no evidence to indicate what was actually discussed at the committee meetings, there is no proof that any agencies' activities were influenced by the determinations of the committee and there will be no repercussions (according to you) related to the committee's activities. I would say that there is no there there.
Who wants to take bets that this doesn't get half the news play of Obama's bowling score?
If America is to cleanse itself, these people should be on trial for war crimes. There is enough information to start those proceedings against Mr. Yoo right now.
We all knew from the start that the abuses at Abu Ghraib weren't just the machinations of Lynndie England. This is just more proof.
The shocking lack of accountability surprises me. This is America and that used to mean something that it no longer does. Things like we play by rules that set us apart from those who torture and kill indescriminently. When we no longer hold those accountable for their actions we become like those we say we are better than. And when our leaders refuse to tell us what they are doing, its because they do not wish to be held accountable.
There seems to be a moral progression with those who would defend the Bush administration use of torture and suspension of rights. It goes something like this:
1) Nations that play by humanitarian rules are the good guys.
2) America plays by those rules, therefore America is one of the good guys
3) America is one of the good guys even if it doesn't play by those rules anymore simply because they are one of the good guys.
Its a false train of thought but so many seem to think that simply because we once stood for justice and accountability we are entitled to that distinctoin whether or not our actions merit it. Those people make me sick.
Torture and other methods of inhumane treatmetn of detiainees has cost the US the loss of the moral highgroudn in any conflict. Consequently, we have lost precious ground in the role as a world leader. Most recently, amid the protests against Chinas repressive regime, there are questions being raised asking who are Aemericans to point fingers?
It will take decades to regain out footing, id we ever do.
During the primaries, we argue about the economy and Iraq. Those, and others, are vital issues to consider, but first and foremost, I'm looking for a president who won't lose his head in the face of adversity, controversy or, even, an extreme shock like 9/11, .
That's why I support Obama. He appears to be the one able to keep cool under fire.
Ranasim – name an instance where Mr. Obama has demonstrated that he is cool under fire. Because, you know, otherwise, it is just projection.
Obama's responses to the controversies of the primary campaign season certainly seem cool and measured. Wright, Powers, Ferraro, his initial loss in Texas.
He also avoided the pressure to join the chorus that was selling the Iraq war, despite administration visions of mushroom clouds.
PWT,
RE: “name an instance where Mr. Obama has demonstrated that he is cool under fire. “
Please refer to Chris www's response for the main course.
Other instances involve his refusal to vote for emotional, as opposed to real policy, bills thatt have come before Congress.
An example is the resolution calling Iran's security forces terrorists.
Whether that is ture or not , is beside the point. The resolution just provided venting for our frustrations without advancing any measures to deal with the cause of those frustrations.
Besides, the resolution opened the door to some other coutnry resolving to call the CIA a terrorist organization.
It revved up fears of Iran by some and fears of the consequences of the resolution in others. Nothing was achieved, and obama was right to keep cool and refuse to take part.
“Since this committee has been in existence since 1989…”
What an incredible display of disingenuousness. Seven years into the Bush Administration and the knee-jerk retorts of “But Clinton did it too!” to excuse or defend are getting really tiresome. That would be like finding out that someone in the National Security Council got caught in some scandal and trying to defend by saying “but the NSC has been in existence since 1947. BUT TRUMAN!!!1111″
It isn't JUST who/what was involved (the Principals Committee), but what they *did*. Perhaps the Principals Committee has existed since 1989. If you want to put that forward as a point, maybe you could answer why it took Yoo and Addington to push the legal justifications for torture under the *current* administration.