Powell Aide says torture orders came from Cheney

[Balta1701]

Former Aide to Colin Powell Lawrence Wilkerson...the same guy who a couple weeks ago wrote an article calling the current administration a "Cabal" claims he has documented evidence that the orders for the widespread and systematic abuse and torture of prisoners conducted by the U.S. under the guise of the War on Terror came directly from the Vice President of the United States. Source.

 

On NPR yesterday, the former chief of staff to the secretary of state said that he had uncovered a "visible audit trail" tracing the practice of prisoner abuse by U.S. soldiers directly back to Vice President Cheney's office.

 

Here's the audio of Wilkerson's interview with Steve Inskeep. The transcript is not publicly available, but here are the relevant excerpts:

 

"INSKEEP: While in the government, he says he was assigned to gather documents. He traced just how Americans came to be accused of abusing prisoners. In 2002, a presidential memo had ordered that detainees be treated in a manner consistent with the Geneva Conventions that forbid torture. Wilkerson says the vice president's office pushed for a more expansive policy.

 

"Mr. WILKERSON: What happened was that the secretary of Defense, under the cover of the vice president's office, began to create an environment -- and this started from the very beginning when David Addington, the vice president's lawyer, was a staunch advocate of allowing the president in his capacity as commander in chief to deviate from the Geneva Conventions. Regardless of the president having put out this memo, they began to authorize procedures within the armed forces that led to, in my view, what we've seen.

 

"INSKEEP: We have to get more detail about that because the military will say, the Pentagon will say they've investigated this repeatedly and that all the investigations have found that the abuses were committed by a relatively small number of people at relatively low levels. What hard evidence takes those abuses up the chain of command and lands them in the vice president's office, which is where you're placing it?

 

"Mr. WILKERSON: I'm privy to the paperwork, both classified and unclassified, that the secretary of State asked me to assemble on how this all got started, what the audit trail was, and when I began to assemble this paperwork, which I no longer have access to, it was clear to me that there was a visible audit trail from the vice president's office through the secretary of Defense down to the commanders in the field that in carefully couched terms -- I'll give you that -- that to a soldier in the field meant two things: We're not getting enough good intelligence and you need to get that evidence, and, oh, by the way, here's some ways you probably can get it. And even some of the ways that they detailed were not in accordance with the spirit of the Geneva Conventions and the law of war.

 

"You just -- if you're a military man, you know that you just don't do these sorts of things because once you give just the slightest bit of leeway, there are those in the armed forces who will take advantage of that. There are those in the leadership who will feel so pressured that they have to produce intelligence that it doesn't matter whether it's actionable or not as long as they can get the volume in. They have to do what they have to do to get it, and so you've just given in essence, though you may not know it, carte blanche for a lot of problems to occur."

 

Addington, incidentally, was promoted this week to the position of vice presidential chief of staff, replacing his indicted former boss, Scooter Libby. (For more on Addington, read my columns from Tuesday and Wednesday .)

 

The only news service I have found that covered Wilkerson's comments on NPR was Agence France Presse .

 

But if past is prologue, it will get picked up by more people soon.

 

In my October 20 column , I expressed surprise that Wilkerson's last thunderbolt hadn't made the front pages.

 

The previous day, he had given a speech in which he declared that a secret cabal led by the vice president has hijacked U.S. foreign policy and crippled the ability of the government to respond to emergencies.

 

But it's gotten a lot more attention since.

[hi8is]

you mean that the current aminstration isnt sitting around having tea and crumpets with sherrly temple?

NOOOO

strawberry shortcake you ask?

nope, they dont like her either,

 

This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you.

[FlaSoxxJim]

And surprisingly, Cheney continues to argue that the Central Intelligence Agency be exempted from McCain's proposed bill banning the abusive treatment of terror suspsects.

 

Wow, whodathink he's take that stance?

[kapkomet]

If you look and watch really close, GWB is really starting to distance himself from Cheney on his "policies".

 

Gee, whoda thunk that?

 

Cheney is pretty radical, there's no doubt about that. I've often thought that when I listen to him.

[Balta1701]

If you look and watch really close, GWB is really starting to distance himself from Cheney on his "policies".

 

Gee, whoda thunk that? 

 

Cheney is pretty radical, there's no doubt about that.  I've often thought that when I listen to him.

He had a chance to distance himself from Cheney in the summer of 04. He chose not to. He still wanted Cheney as his VP.

 

This stuff was going on regularly in the summer of 04. If he really had ap roblem with it, he had the perfect opportunity then. They could have used one of Cheney's random nearly-hidden hospital visits as an excuse if they were really desperate.

[southsider2k5]

NO big suprise here if this is true. Low level military people don't just do things willy nilly. They follow orders, as they are trained from day one. You might have a rouge person or two, but when it becomes a pattern, there is a reason for that. As I said after Abu Grahib, someone told them to do this, and that person has to be found.

[Balta1701]

NO big suprise here if this is true.  Low level military people don't just do things willy nilly.  They follow orders, as they are trained from day one.  You might have a rouge person or two, but when it becomes a pattern, there is a reason for that.  As I said after Abu Grahib, someone told them to do this, and that person has to be found.

Which is why the Democrats need subpoena power. Just 1 house of Congress in 06 is all I want. Y'all can have the rest. Just give the other side of the aisle subpoena power.

 

Btw, welcome back to regular posting. Now get your fingers workin and get up to 120 posts today!

[kapkomet]

Which is why the Democrats need subpoena power.  Just 1 house of Congress in 06 is all I want.  Y'all can have the rest.  Just give the other side of the aisle subpoena power.

 

Btw, welcome back to regular posting.  Now get your fingers workin and get up to 120 posts today!

Right now, the only thing Saddam Hussein's lawyers need to do is read a transcript of the Senate the last two weeks to get him cleared of all charges, and to swing him right back into power. It's great!!

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Right now, the only thing Saddam Hussein's lawyers need to do is read a transcript of the Senate the last two weeks to get him cleared of all charges, and to swing him right back into power.  It's great!!

 

 

Im not so sure about all that.

[kapkomet]

Im not so sure about all that.

Oops. Shoulda been in green.

[Balta1701]

Right now, the only thing Saddam Hussein's lawyers need to do is read a transcript of the Senate the last two weeks to get him cleared of all charges, and to swing him right back into power.  It's great!!

Would that bring the 2000+ American soldiers, 200 or so foreign soldiers, 200 or so U.S. contractors, and various few thousand other Iraqis back to life? Would that also cut off the ample supply of recruits the war has given Al Qaeda? Would that give us our $250 billiion back?

[kapkomet]

Would that bring the 2000+ American soldiers, 200 or so foreign soldiers, 200 or so U.S. contractors, and various few thousand other Iraqis back to life?  Would that also cut off the ample supply of recruits the war has given Al Qaeda?  Would that give us our $250 billiion back?

That $250 billion had to go somewhere (read: Halliburton, Exxon Mobile, etc.) to generate economic growth, come on!

 

But forget the fact that 3,000 died in one day here. Oh wait, they're not connected. Nevermind.

[The Ginger Kid]

I'm a lefty, but if torturing some terrorist is going to prevent a future attack then so be it.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I'm a lefty, but if torturing some terrorist is going to prevent a future attack then so be it.

 

 

 

[southsider2k5]

That $250 billion had to go somewhere (read: Halliburton, Exxon Mobile, etc.) to generate economic growth, come on!

 

But forget the fact that 3,000 died in one day here.  Oh wait, they're not connected.  Nevermind.

 

Not to mention the people that had been killed in between the first and the second gulf wars, or were still going to be tortured and killed, or would have been victims of Saddams next war.

[Balta1701]

Not to mention the people that had been killed in between the first and the second gulf wars, or were still going to be tortured and killed, or would have been victims of Saddams next war.

Yeah, man, thank goodness we invaded and put a stop to the torture of Iraqis.

[southsider2k5]

Yeah, man, thank goodness we invaded and put a stop to the torture of Iraqis.

 

You are absolutely right. We should have stood by and let genocide happen, like we did in Africa.

[Balta1701]

You are absolutely right.  We should have stood by and let genocide happen, like we did in Africa.

Of course, you're forgetting 1 thing...there was no genocide in progress in Iraq. Nothing even resembling one.

 

Had there actually been an actual active campaign against the people, you'd have heard me changing my tone rapidly. But that was not the case at the time we invaded. Iraq was roughly stable, with a dramatically weakend army, and with a regime in charge that while not even remotely good on the question of human rights, was no worse than a dozen other nations in the world.

[Balta1701]

I'm a lefty, but if torturing some terrorist is going to prevent a future attack then so be it.

I think Dick Cheney has been watching too many Hollywood flicks that glorify torture. He needs, instead, to get on the ground and talk to the folks he is ostensibly trying to empower to torture. Unlike Dick I have spoken with three CIA operations officers in the last three months--all who have worked on terrorism at the highest levels--and not one endorses torture or believes it will help us. In fact, they believe it will hurt us on many levels.

 

Two of my friends served in Afghanistan in the immediate aftermath of 9-11. If the suicide bombing of the World Trade Centers was not enough justification for hooking Haji up to battery cables, I don't know what is. My friends recognized correctly that their mission was to gather intelligence not create new enemies. If you inflict enough pain on someone they will give you information, but, unless you kill them, they will hold a grudge. As far as the information goes there is no guarantee it will be correct.

 

What real CIA field officers know from their work with actual sources is that whatever short term benefit can be derived from torture will be offset by the new enemy you have created. It is better to build a relationship of trust, no matter how painstaking, rather than gain a short term benefit that puts you on par with a Nazi concentration camp guard.

Former CIA Guy Larry Johnson.

[The Ginger Kid]

Former CIA Guy Larry Johnson.

 

 

I doubt seriously that torture victims are adding significantly to the ranks of anti-American fundamentalists in the middle east. I'm sure some seminars in Syria and Iran do more for that cause than we do.

 

Look, I don't like the idea of innocent people getting tortured, no one does. But 9/11 changed a lot of things. And this is one of them. I actually agree with Bush's polilcy of pre-emptive strikes in our nation's defense, it's just too bad that the first time the miserable idiot applies that policy it's against a country that didn't present a threat. At all. Worse, he knew it, too. So now you can take that policy and basically throw it out the window since those who came up with it have rendered it useless by their own incompetence and arrogance.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Of course, you're forgetting 1 thing...there was no genocide in progress in Iraq.  Nothing even resembling one.

 

 

 

Are you sure about that?

 

 

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html

[Balta1701]

Look, I don't like the idea of innocent people getting tortured, no one does. But 9/11 changed a lot of things. And this is one of them. I actually agree with Bush's polilcy of pre-emptive strikes in our nation's defense

See, here's the odd thing, I think there's hardly a person out there who wouldn't agree with that statement.

 

Take for example, the Israeli preemptive strike on Egypt in 1967. How many people here would argue that Israel wasn't justified in striking Egypt preemptively? Look at the situation:

 

Repeated skirmishes between the Isrealis and the Syrians throughout 1966 and 1967

(Including air battles)

Shelling of Israeli targets by Syria

An alliance pack signed between Egypt and Syria in 1966

Withdrawal of the U.N. forces from the Suez region (basically in place since the 50's as a buffer between Egypt and Israel) at the request of the Egyptions

Closing of the Straits of Tiran by Egypt (cutting off several Israeli ports)

Signing of a mutual defense treaty between Egypt and Jordan in 1967

Repeated statements by Egyptian President Nasser suggesting war with Israel.

 

It is possible to argue that the Egyptians weren't really prepared for war in 1967. Part of their army was bogged down in fighting a civil war in Yemen. One could suggest they were merely rattling the sabre to try to get concessions from Israel without war. But given the situation Israel was in, I find it impossible to disagree with their decision to launch a preemptive strike.

 

However, this situation is totally different from the sort of preemptive strike that Bush has made. I even really don't like the idea of using the same term - preemptive strike. Because in the Israeli case, they were faced with what seemed to be a clear and growing threat. In the Iraqi case, we were faced with no threat, but only a dictator who did not like us. He had not acted on those instincts in years, and in fact was backing down in front of every U.S. demand - i.e. dismantling of missiles, acceptance of total inspections, etc.

 

Bush's preemptive war doctrine basically said that we'll go to war against people who don't like us because they might threaten us in the future. The way Israel used it, they used it against a nation that was threatening them with war in the immediate future. There is a profound difference between those 2 cases.

 

If you asked someone if in 2000, they would have supported a preemptive strike against the folks that attacked the U.S.S. Cole, would you have supported it? I think I would have...because we'd know beyond a shadow of a doubt that we were facing people who could threaten to do more in the future. I don't see how anyone could disagree with a preemptive strike in the face of a direct threat. I could even understand an Israeli strike on Iran after the words of the Iranian leader right now (that doesn't mean the strike would be the right strategic decision, only that it could be justifiable).

[Balta1701]

Are you sure about that?

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html

How many of those people died in the year or two leading up to the war, and how many of them died in the massive attack by Hussein on the Shia during 1991 or before that, when a strike on them might have prevented the deaths?

 

We had no fly zones in place over Iraq in 2003. We had constant patrols over both the north and south. Iraq's army was not moving. There was no genocide in progress. If there had been, do you think Bush would have been forced to cite 1988's events as evidence for invading Iraq for humanitarian reasons?

 

Your example is something different from invading to stop a genocide. Your example is invading to punish a leader for a previous one.

[Soxy]

I got this from Sojourners, I heart that magazine.

 

 

Who would Jesus torture?

by David Batstone

 

Christians of strong religious faith and sound moral conscience often end up in disagreement. Human affairs are a messy business, unfortunately, and even at the best of times we only see through a glass, darkly.

 

It is hard for that reason to call Christians to a universal standard of behavior. At this moment, however, we cannot afford to dilute the message of Jesus into meaningless ambiguity. There are certain acts that a follower of Jesus simply cannot accept. Here is one: A Christian cannot justify the torture of a human being.

 

The practice of torture by American soldiers is a hot topic at the Pentagon, in the Congress, and in the White House at the moment. The U.S. Senate already has passed 90-9 a bill that prohibits "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment" of prisoners in U.S. custody. The lead advocate of the bill, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), was tortured by his captors during the Vietnam War. According to The New York Times, the Pentagon adopted a policy last Thursday to rein in interrogation techniques. The new policy uses much of the same language as the McCain amendment - drawn in large part from the Geneva Convention - to adopt standards for handling terror suspects.

 

Remarkably, the White House opposes the Pentagon initiative, and threatens to veto any legislation to which the McCain bill gets attached. Vice President Dick Cheney has urged Republican senators to allow CIA counterterrorism operations internationally to be exempt from the ban on mistreatment of prisoners, major newspapers reported.

 

On Nov. 3, Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff for then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, said during an interview on NPR's "Morning Edition" that memos from Cheney's office practically encouraged abuse of Iraqi prisoners. Though in "carefully couched terms" that would allow for deniability, the message from Cheney's office conveyed the sentiment that interrogations of Iraqi prisoners were not providing the needed intelligence. Wilkerson said soldiers in the field would have concluded that to garner better intelligence they could resort to interrogation techniques that "were not in accordance with the spirit of the Geneva Conventions and the law of war."

 

Republican senators are among the strongest voices in the growing chorus of criticism. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said, "I think the administration is making a terrible mistake in opposing John McCain's amendment on detainees and torture." And Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and co-sponsor of McCain's measure, agreed: "I firmly believe that it's in the best interest of the Department of Defense, the men and women of the United States military that this manual be their guide."

 

When the existence of secret CIA detention centers became public this week, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) called for investigations - not about whether they violate laws governing human rights - but about how the information was leaked. But members of their own party are keeping the focus where it belongs. The Washington Post quoted Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) as saying, "Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. The real story is those jails."

 

Admittedly, Christians of good faith part paths when political conflict leads us to consider what constitutes a just and righteous war - or if any war can be just. Though we may not consent on the means, we do consent on the need to confront the spread of evil in the world. Yet we can all affirm scripture when it says, "Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all.... Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:17, 21). When we confront evil with its own means, those means mark our own character.

 

In that regard, the practice of torture so fully embraces evil it dehumanizes both the torturer and its victim. No just cause can be won if it relies on torture to succeed. Democracy and freedom cannot result from a war fueled by torture, which is why so many Americans were shocked and angered by the disturbing incidents that took place at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

 

All the more so, Christians must oppose torture under any circumstances. Consider this: Who would Jesus torture? I cannot imagine Jesus finding a single "exemption" that would justify such an abuse of any individual made in God's image.

 

Though I bristle whenever I hear someone refer to the United States as a Christian nation - it is such a loaded phrase - many in the Muslim world see us as such. How tragic it would be for Muslims to identify the message and mission of Jesus with torture and terror. We must not allow that to happen.

 

Action alert: "Do not repay evil for evil...." (1 Peter 3:9).

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Soxy.

 

Invoking religon into this isin't the greatest idea. If there were liberals as we know em today around during the days of the Old Testament you'd want to put God on trial for war crimes. Im not the biggest bible scholar out there but I know that in the Old Testament God did a whole lot of really nasty stuff to people who didn't worship him properly. Stuff that makes stress positions, sleep deprivation and loud music pale in comparison.