Authorizing Torture One Memo at a Time

-

3-30-06 sands 007.jpg
From the same person who broke the story on Prime Minister Tony Blair’s January of 2003 conversation with President Bush that sealed their agreement to invade Iraq regardless of the UN Security Council outcome (and even use a UN plane to bait an attack), Matrix Chambers Barrister and University College London Law Professor Philippe Sands has produced a stunning cover story in Vanity Fair magazine this month on the legal maneuvers that laid the foundations for a US policy of torture.
Some excerpts from the article — which itself is only a prelude to the book — needed to pulled for the revelations they offered. Most entertaining, though of lesser importance, is the unflattering portrait Sands paints of former Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith.
First on international law and global perception:

“This year I was really a player,” Feith said, thinking back on 2002 and relishing the memory. I asked him whether, in the end, he was at all concerned that the Geneva decision might have diminished America’s moral authority. He was not. “The problem with moral authority,” he said, was “people who should know better, like yourself, siding with the assholes, to put it crudely.”

Then on plausible deniability:

Dunlavey described Feith to me as one of his main points of contact. Feith, for his part, had told me that he knew nothing about any specific interrogation issues until the Haynes Memo suddenly landed on his desk. But that couldn’t be right — in the memo itself Haynes had written, “I have discussed this with the Deputy, Doug Feith and General Myers.” I read the sentence aloud. Feith looked at me. His only response was to tell me that I had mispronounced his name. “It’s Fythe,” he said. “Not Faith.”

But Feith aside, Sands really lands a damning punch when connecting the dots on the points of contact between the highest level administration officials/decision makers and the operators who carried out their illegal plans at Guantanamo.

Not everyone at Guantanamo was enthusiastic. The F.B.I. and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service refused to be associated with aggressive interrogation. They opposed the techniques. One of the N.C.I.S. psychologists, Mike Gelles, knew about the brainstorming sessions but stayed away. He was dismissive of the administration’s contention that the techniques trickled up on their own from Guantanamo. “That’s not accurate,” he said flatly. “This was not done by a bunch of people down in Gitmo — no way.”
That view is buttressed by a key event that has received virtually no attention. On September 25, as the process of elaborating new interrogation techniques reached a critical point, a delegation of the administration’s most senior lawyers arrived at Guantanamo. The group included the president’s lawyer, Alberto Gonzales, who had by then received the Yoo-Bybee Memo; Vice President Cheney’s lawyer, David Addington, who had contributed to the writing of that memo; the C.I.A.’s John Rizzo, who had asked for a Justice Department sign-off on individual techniques, including waterboarding, and received the second (and still secret) Yoo-Bybee Memo; and Jim Haynes, Rumsfeld’s counsel. They were all well aware of al-Qahtani. “They wanted to know what we were doing to get to this guy,” Dunlavey told me, “and Addington was interested in how we were managing it.” I asked what they had to say. “They brought ideas with them which had been given from sources in D.C.,” Dunlavey said. “They came down to observe and talk.” Throughout this whole period, Dunlavey went on, Rumsfeld was “directly and regularly involved.”
Beaver confirmed the account of the visit. Addington talked a great deal, and it was obvious to her that he was a “very powerful man” and “definitely the guy in charge,” with a booming voice and confident style. Gonzales was quiet. Haynes, a friend and protege of Addington’s, seemed especially interested in the military commissions, which were to decide the fate of individual detainees. They met with the intelligence people and talked about new interrogation methods. They also witnessed some interrogations. Beaver spent time with the group. Talking about the episode even long afterward made her visibly anxious. Her hand tapped and she moved restlessly in her chair. She recalled the message they had received from the visitors: Do “whatever needed to be done.” That was a green light from the very top — the lawyers for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the C.I.A. The administration’s version of events — that it became involved in the Guantanamo interrogations only in November, after receiving a list of techniques out of the blue from the “aggressive major general” — was demonstrably false.

Sands will be speaking tomorrow (Tuesday May 5) at 3:30pm the New America Foundation offices in a talk sure to be littered with more zingers and telling anecdotes. Accompanying him will be by Col. (Ret.) Lawrence Wilkerson, another leading expert on the dilemmas of national security law who has been known to be quite a force when standing behind a podium.
— Sameer Lalwani

Comments

8 comments on “Authorizing Torture One Memo at a Time

  1. Linda says:

    Please make available audio or video of Tuesday’s event.
    As soon as I finished the Phillipe Sands article in my paper Vanity
    Fair, I went to B & N and got waitlisted for the book.

    Reply

  2. jon says:

    What are the candidates going to do about the memos and
    practices? I’d like my country and Constitution back now, thanks.

    Reply

  3. jonst says:

    Nothing is going to come of this. Sadly. And that nothing will come of, indeed, that little interest will be generated by this story ‘outside of a small circle of friends’ is the real story of America, circa 2008. Wake me up when any major Dem talks about this article in detail. I’ll settle for them just talking about it in public. They won’t do it. I repeat….Bush et al will get away with this.

    Reply

  4. Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi says:

    It goes without saying that the Bush-Blair political honeymoon regarding the US-preconceived(without a justified cause)plan of invading in March, 2003 is of no secrete.The virtual fact of this unfair war-planning is that this act of heinous war- crime drastically damaged the moral and political reputations of the two political giants of their times- George W. Bush and Mr Tony Blair.

    Reply

  5. Zathras says:

    I wonder if I am the only person who thinks that the reported recusal of FBI and NCIS from “aggressive interrogation” doesn’t quite cut it.
    For me, it isn’t so much a question of violating legal and moral norms. This is certainly an issue, and I don’t mean to minimize it. But unless I’m badly mistaken, it is agencies like FBI and NCIS that are supposed to know what they are doing when it comes to interrogation. The source of David Addington’s expertise in this field, on the other hand, is unknown to me. That goes for Alberto Gonzales and the other administration big shots as well.
    The Vanity Fair piece describes the equivalent of civilians coming into a war zone and directing combat operations, while the military officers commanding the units involved “refused to be associated” with commands of which they disapproved and had good reason to believe would not produce the results sought. It may be that some of the FBI or NCIS personnel involved are sources for journalists now, and that is fine. I don’t see that it absolves them of a share of the responsibility for this disgraceful episode.

    Reply

  6. TonyForesta says:

    The “message-force multipliers” and complicit parrots in the socalled MSM brute lies, and cloak facts for a living.
    It is beyond obvious that the highest echelons of the Bush government (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al) were intimately involved in planning and prosecuting the torture programs in Iraq, Afghanistan, and beyond.
    Yet, Americans are apparently tolerate of these perversions and lawlessness, and unwilling, or simply not interested in holding the fascists in the Bush government accountable for advancing torture as government policy.
    We will all get what we deserve.

    Reply

  7. WigWag says:

    Wow, thanks for the link to the Vanity Fair article. I just read it and it is shocking. Is there any chance that an audio or video (or live stream) of the Sands talk at the New America Foundation will be available?

    Reply

  8. JohnH says:

    Let’s hope the evidence is admissible in court.
    Don’t expect any of this to be on cable or network news. NY Times might deign to put it on page A18.
    Is Sands going on a book signing tour?

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *