Torture

Experts Predict Slew of Torture Suits

Last week the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decided to take a second look at the case of a Canadian citizen interrogated by the U.S. in Syria.

Ends & Means in War Crimes Trials

Osama bin Laden's alleged driver, Salim Hamdan, was convicted on five of 10 charges. Meanwhile, a former Serbian leader stands trial in The Hague. Will future generations deem both as just verdicts?

Torture and the Presidential race

While more and more evidence comes out that Bush administration officials illegally authorized torture of suspected terrorists, in violation not only of international law but of established U.S. law as well, both leading presidential candidates have, for the most part, remained silent on whether they support further investigation and prosecution, if the evidence warrants it.

 

Still, the statements they’ve made so far about torture, justice and accountability give us a strong idea of where they stand on the question.

 

At his recent speech in Berlin, Sen. Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic nominee, made a point of asking: “Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law?” Though he didn’t lay out what exactly he would do to enforce the law, his comments elsewhere indicate he’s open to investigating and even prosecuting policy-makers for war crimes if the evidence turns out to support the charges. As he told a Philadelphia Inquirer reporter in April:

Torture Memo Shields Interrogators

Government memo says even interrogation tactics that lead to brutal results are OK if carried out in "good faith."

Yoo-Bybee II: (Sort of) Revealed!

It's a landmark day for torture-disclosure. Today, the ACLU obtained and released a redacted version of one of the most important building blocks in the Bush administration's architecture of torture -- the very, very, closely-held August 2002 memo, known as "Yoo-Bybee II," from the Justice Dept.'s Office of Legal Counsel that authorized the CIA to perform specific methods of torture when interrogating Al Qaeda detainees. Almost the entire memo is redacted, but it reads a lot like legal guidance on how CIA interrogators can break anti-torture laws and get away with it.

Using Law to Justify Torture

The Bush White House might be on shaky ground in relying on memos written by administration lawyers to justify "enhanced interrogation" policies.

Batman's 'Dark Knight' Reflects Cheney Policy

REEL LIFE

Lawmakers Question Feith on Torture

Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense for policy, told lawmakers that he supports the Geneva Conventions, though he approved techniques that include the use of dogs in questioning and the removal of of a detainees clothing.

"A Great Deal Is Permitted"

Sands has been shaking his head in defiance at nearly everything Feith says. And that’s not so surprising, considering that Feith has repeatedly said that if detainees received P.O.W. status it would have precluded interrogation. "A great deal is permitted," Sands says of interrogation consistent with Geneva Conventions protection. "What works is rapport building… The main problem with torture is that it doesn’t produce useful information."

'Some People Do Bad Things'

After going back and forth with Feith—in which Feith conceded there were indeed abuses in Defense Dept. detention and interrogation operations— Rep. Bobby Scott (D.-Va) asked why the abusers might think they could torture detainees. "I don’t believe they necessarily did think they did" had authority to torture, Feith said. "Some people do bad things."

"They Had To Be Vigorous In Interrogation, But Vigorous Within The Law"

So why did Feith believe the Taliban—not Al Qaeda—was entitled to Geneva Conventions protections but not P.O.W. privileges? "This comes across as interesting law school debate, but we’re talking about American lives," Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.). Yes, Republican of Indiana. He’s actually suggesting that that’s a good call because we could have been more brutal—shucks—but, still, it’s a good question.

Feith Returns To The 'Bad Apple' Argument

Doug Feith is shocked, shocked that anyone would have, say, "exploited Arab fear of dogs"—an approved Pentagon technique at Guantanamo Bay—inhumanely. "Those techniques were supposed to be done within the law and the decision by the President in favor of humane treatment," Feith said. "There is no excuse whatsoever for any inhumane treatment."

'I Do Believe It Impeaches Him As A Commentator'

Feith just listed what he says is a host of errors of facts in Sands's book. He says there was no dissent within the Bush administration on the decision that Geneva Conventions protections didn't apply to Al Qaeda detainees. "I do believe it impeaches him as a commentator," he said with gusto.

But wait, asked Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), What about ex-State Dept. counsel William Howard Taft IV? "I don't think he said the Geneva Conventions apply to the conflict with Al Qaeda." Former Navy counsel Alberto Mora? "I don't recall." Colin Powell? "I reviewed my notes" from a critical meeting "and I didn't see that either." But alleged errors impeach someone else's standing as a commentator on national security.

'Removal of Clothing' Is Different From 'Naked''

Doug Feith was just asked about Jim Haynes' 2002 memo on what tactics are legal in interrogation. He says in his recommendations, in April 2003,  what was and was not permissible in interrogations relied "on the general counsel... Mr. Haynes," Feith says, throwing Haynes under the bus.

But then Feith starts whining about how people haven't read the October 11 2002 memo on interrogations that give "great care" to how to apply, say, stress positions, isolation, removal of clothing, exploitation of "Arab fear of dogs" and 20-hour interrogations "humanely." Chairman Jerrold Nadler is incredulous. How could that possibly be humane?

Sands And Feith Call Each Other Liars

Doug Feith started off today's House judiciary torture hearing by insisting that Philippe Sands misquoted him in the book "Torture Team." Feith said he was a strong believer in Geneva protections for detainees. Sands then read from a transcript of his recorded interviews with Feith, and further quoted Feith as saying that Al Qaeda detainees did not deserve Geneva protections -- and that such a decision was "obvious." These men do not like each other.

Feith Set To Testify On Torture

In about half an hour, Douglas Feith, the former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy -- the Taint of Occupation himself -- will testify before Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)'s House Judiciary subcommittee about his role in authorizing the Defense Dept's regime of torture for captured enemy combatants. Last month, Nadler issued a subpoena for Feith's testimony after the controversial ex-Pentagon official reneged on a promise to dish to the subcommittee.

Red Cross: Abu Zubaydah's Treatment By U.S. Was 'Categorically' Torture

For us national-security writers, our version of "Iron Man" or "The Dark Knight" is Jane Mayer's "The Dark Side" -- the first book on the war on terrorism from (in my opinion) the nation's absolute best national security reporter. Scott Shane of the New York Times has a choice preview in the New York Times of what Mayer's much-anticipated volume contains:

The Waterboarding of Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens agrees to be waterboarded for Vanity Fair. Video (which I can't seem to embed) here. Malcolm Nance, a friend of mine who has been waterboarded as part of his old torture resistance training -- SERE -- and whom instructed Naval special forces how to endure it, described its brutality in gruesome detail to Congress last year.

But it's different to see it. In April, we reported on Amnesty International's waterboarding video. An earlier one appeared on Keith Olbermann's show. It's important to see this, again and again and again, to combat what I believe Hitchens used to call "the sin of euphemism." When John Yoo says the "circumstances" determine if waterboarding is torture if it's done to U.S. troops or when Michael Mukasey says waterboarding is "repugnant" but may not be torture or when Mike McConnell says it's torture to him only because of his bad sinuses, that euphemism embeds itself into the American character. Today we learn from The New York Times that one of the places of origin of what George W. Bush euphemistically calls "enhanced interrogation" is Maoist China. What could be more un-American? What could be more anti-American? And what sort of person would apologize for this?

Truth & Consequences for CIA on Torture

The CIA's role in President George W. Bush's torture policy is bad news for a troubled agency with important work to do.

John Yoo vs Philippe Sands

In last week's interminable Yoo/Addington hearing, torture memo author John Yoo accused Vanity Fair reporter and Torture Team author Philippe Sands of lying about interviewing him. Brian Beutler -- owner of the best beard in opinion journalism, btw -- tracked Sands down. Tell 'em: