TORTURE AND THE VICE PRESIDENT....

As I mentioned yesterday, Sunday's New York Times carries a story
about Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al-Qaeda prisoner captured shortly
after 9/11.

According to a newly declassified memo, not only did al-Libi provide
us with false information suggesting that Iraq had trained al-Qaeda to
use WMD, but U.S. intelligence had a pretty good idea the information
was false as early as 2002.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/politics/06intel.html?ex=1288933200&en=5a216116a0310ce1&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Colin Powell nonetheless presented this to the UN as credible evidence
of Iraqi WMD programs in February 2003, shortly before we invaded
Iraq.

Via Atrios, it turns out that we had excellent reasons to be skeptical
of al-Libi's testimony.
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_10_30_atrios_archive.html#113125085683083680

As Newsweek reported last year, al-Libi was one of the first test
cases for ***** Cheney's campaign to introduce torture as a standard
interrogation technique overseas, replacing the FBI's more mainstream
methods: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5197853/site/newsweek/


Al-Libi's capture, some sources say, was an early turning point in the
government's internal debates over interrogation methods....

"They duct-taped his mouth, cinched him up and sent him to Cairo" for
more-fearsome Egyptian interrogations, says the ex-FBI official.

"At the airport the CIA case officer goes up to him and says, 'You're
going to Cairo, you know. Before you get there I'm going to find your
mother and I'm going to f--- her.' So we lost that fight."


No wonder DIA was skeptical of al-Libi's information.

Not only did the details of his testimony seem inconsistent with known
facts, but DIA knew perfectly well he had given up this information
only under torture and was probably just saying anything that came to
mind in order to get it to stop.

As Mark Kleiman points out, this is the pragmatic case against
torture: not only is it wrong, but it doesn't even provide reliable
information anyway -- and it makes Cheney's relentless moral cretinism
on the subject all the worse.

Larry Wilkerson, who investigated this back when he was Colin Powell's
chief of staff, confirms that "there was a visible audit trail from
the vice president's office" that authorized the practices that led to
the abuse of detainees, and Cheney continues to vigorously support the
use of torture to this day, pressuring Congress behind closed doors
not to pass John McCain's anti-torture legislation.

As Andrew Sullivan says:


A man who avoided service in Vietnam is lecturing John McCain on the
legitimacy of torturing military detainees.

But notice he won't even make his argument before Senate aides, let
alone the public.

Why not?

If he really believes that the U.S. has not condoned torture but wants
to reserve it for exceptional cases, why not make his argument in the
full light of day?

You know: where democratically elected politicians operate.


If conservatives dislike ***** Durbin's comparison of American
practices to those of Hitler and Stalin, they should make clear to
***** Cheney that America doesn't condone the practices of Hitler and
Stalin.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=91568

Because apparently, the vice president of the United States does
condone them.

Vigorously.

It's enough to make any decent human being puke.

_____________________________________________________________

Harry

TORTURE AND THE VICE PRESIDENT....

As I mentioned yesterday, Sunday's New York Times carries a story
about Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al-Qaeda prisoner captured shortly
after 9/11.

According to a newly declassified memo, not only did al-Libi provide
us with false information suggesting that Iraq had trained al-Qaeda to
use WMD, but U.S. intelligence had a pretty good idea the information
was false as early as 2002.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/politics/06intel.html?ex=1288933200&en=5a216116a0310ce1&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Colin Powell nonetheless presented this to the UN as credible evidence
of Iraqi WMD programs in February 2003, shortly before we invaded
Iraq.

Via Atrios, it turns out that we had excellent reasons to be skeptical
of al-Libi's testimony.
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_10_30_atrios_archive.html#113125085683083680

As Newsweek reported last year, al-Libi was one of the first test
cases for ***** Cheney's campaign to introduce torture as a standard
interrogation technique overseas, replacing the FBI's more mainstream
methods: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5197853/site/newsweek/


Al-Libi's capture, some sources say, was an early turning point in the
government's internal debates over interrogation methods....

"They duct-taped his mouth, cinched him up and sent him to Cairo" for
more-fearsome Egyptian interrogations, says the ex-FBI official.

"At the airport the CIA case officer goes up to him and says, 'You're
going to Cairo, you know. Before you get there I'm going to find your
mother and I'm going to f--- her.' So we lost that fight."


No wonder DIA was skeptical of al-Libi's information.

Not only did the details of his testimony seem inconsistent with known
facts, but DIA knew perfectly well he had given up this information
only under torture and was probably just saying anything that came to
mind in order to get it to stop.

As Mark Kleiman points out, this is the pragmatic case against
torture: not only is it wrong, but it doesn't even provide reliable
information anyway -- and it makes Cheney's relentless moral cretinism
on the subject all the worse.

Larry Wilkerson, who investigated this back when he was Colin Powell's
chief of staff, confirms that "there was a visible audit trail from
the vice president's office" that authorized the practices that led to
the abuse of detainees, and Cheney continues to vigorously support the
use of torture to this day, pressuring Congress behind closed doors
not to pass John McCain's anti-torture legislation.

As Andrew Sullivan says:


A man who avoided service in Vietnam is lecturing John McCain on the
legitimacy of torturing military detainees.

But notice he won't even make his argument before Senate aides, let
alone the public.

Why not?

If he really believes that the U.S. has not condoned torture but wants
to reserve it for exceptional cases, why not make his argument in the
full light of day?

You know: where democratically elected politicians operate.


If conservatives dislike ***** Durbin's comparison of American
practices to those of Hitler and Stalin, they should make clear to
***** Cheney that America doesn't condone the practices of Hitler and
Stalin.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=91568

Because apparently, the vice president of the United States does
condone them.

Vigorously.

It's enough to make any decent human being puke.

_____________________________________________________________

Harry