Document shows Bush guided CIA on detention

[laststeamtrain]

WASHINGTON: The Central Intelligence Agency has acknowledged for the first time the existence of two classified documents, including one signed by President George W. Bush, that have guided the agency's interrogation and detention of terror suspects.

The CIA disclosed the existence of the documents in a letter Friday sent from the agency's associate general counsel, John McPherson, to lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union.

The contents of the documents were not revealed, but one document, as described by the ACLU, is "a directive signed by President Bush granting the CIA the authority to set up detention facilities outside the United States and outlining interrogation methods that may be used against detainees."

The second document, according to the group is a Justice Department legal analysis "specifying interrogation methods that the CIA may use against top Al Qaeda members."

<more>

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/14/news/intel.php

On edit: Link to pdf of CIA's letter to ACLU (& that's enough Alphabet Soup for me, thank you.)

http://www.aclu.org/images/torture/asset_upload_file825_27365.pdf

[peacebird]

1. quel surprise.... NOT! k&r

[Mabus]

2. next stop for him should be The Hague

K&R

[exlrrp]

33. Youre forgetting the "retroactive clause"

In the latest "terrorsm bill" Ok'ing Waterboarding and tanking habeas corpus, probably the least noticed, but most important to Bush, was the "retroactive clause."
Essentially the bill said anybody comitting the acts described already was retroactively off the hook. Bush and Co said this was necessary, so that the "interrogators" wouldn't be held liable for acts already ccommitted.
Supposedly the concern was for the "interrogators" but it is easy to see now that it was necessary to save Bush's ass (Cheney's too) from future criminal liability. They don't care about the little guys.
I think, as of now, what Bush says here in this memo., is perfectly legal--retroactively. There's ways around this, of course, but I think it would take another bill that BUsh would need to sign to become law. You don't think he's really going to do that, do you? If so, I have a cakewalk in Iraq for sale I'd like to tell you about.

[Mabus]

38. does the US terrorism bill override international law?

and do you think the international courts are bound by US law?

[exlrrp]

52. What I think is irrelevant

Whats going to be relevant is what the Supreme Court thinks--the same people who appointed him president but with 2 more of his appointees--Heckuva Job Roberts and Goes-Hunting-with-Cheney-Alito.
i think its about a 50-50 it will be found unconstitutional--there's never been anything like it before really, except maybe the Dred Scott decision or Plessy ferguson(both later vacated) but then again I think the Supreme Court is corrupt.
i personlly think this will end up a major constitutional contest, or this combined with other things, I think Bush has done plenty enough to warrant jail in more than one area. This may wind up the executive vs the Congress and maybe the Courts. Then again, they may just blow it off, theyve blown off so many other incriminating items.
"...do you think the international courts are bound by US law?..."
Theyre not, the question is whether the US gives up Bush or not. Kissinger's been indicted--he just avoids the countries (like France!)--right now I don't think American servicemen are bound by the Hague, theyve fought against it real hard and for just this reason--don't want American servicemen being tried in a foreign court and Bush will apply that to himself.
A lot will depend on this Rumsfeld thing, he's been indicted in a foregn court, If He is bound by it, Bush may be bound by it also.
God knows whats going to happen, I don't

[TankLV]

55. Retro-actively trying to make something that is illegal legal is unconstitutional.

It is expressly forbidden in the constitution.

This will not stand in court.

He is fried - he cannot escape justice for the crimes he did WHEN HE DID THEM.

AND

Changing the law itself is against the Geneva Conventions and the US Constitution itself, and will not stand either.

Take heart, WE will get these fuckers for what they have done...

[solara]

3. Doesn't Georgie claim that the actual 'methods' of the

'interrogation' they use are top secret and to reveal them would be a security breach? Heh K&R

[stepnw1f]

4. Gee..... Bush a War Criminal?

Nah.... he's a "conservative" kinda guy. Maybe Lieberman and friends will come out to defend him again? Or maybe whitwash this in the MSM like the good little toadies they are.

[savemefromdumbya]

5. BUSH IS TOAST!

can the docs be declassified?

[gratuitous]

6. Darn the luck!

If only these documents had come out a couple of weeks ago, the Republicans in Congress could have jumped on them and started investigating and shown the American people (at last!) how tenacious they are in holding the Bush administration accountable.

Bummer. Hey, do suppose if the lame duck Congress gets on the stick, we could have another election, and see if they Republicans can hang on to a majority this time? Anything in the constitution that absolutely says they can't do this?

[leftchick]

7. good thing the senate passed his " I Am King AND Can Do Whatever The Fuck I Want "

legislation. Apparently it works retroactively and he is guilty of nothing. :puke:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. Not if it's found unconstitutional.

:)

[Jackpine Radical]

11. Who's gonna do THAT?

Scalia? Roberts?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

19. Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer.

If we're lucky.

Who knows, maybe the others will at last have found some shame and join in.

[gratuitous]

17. It almost certainly is unconstitutional

But the legislation itself has a provision that says that the courts are forbidden from ruling on the law's constitutionality. Now, it's an open question whether that provision is, in itself, constitutional, maybe even going all the way back to Marbury v. Madison, the seminal case that set the Supreme Court up as the final arbiter of the constitutionality of laws.

The more interesting question is who will have standing to bring a suit challenging the law? In order to demonstrate "harm" under the law, a person would have had to be subjected to its provisions, and the law says that anyone subject to the laws provisions doesn't have a right to judicial review of his or her detention. And if a person hasn't been detained under the law, they haven't been "harmed" by it, judicially speaking, and can't sustain an action challenging it.

And if someone does manage to bring some portion of the law before a court of competent jurisdiction, will a court confine itself to rule on whatever narrow point of law a plaintiff is able to bring an action, or will a court rule more broadly on the entire law, and risk the wrath of the Repressive Right in being labeled an "activist" court?

[Drum]

20. Great points, all.

Thanks for weighing in, and for lending some much-appreciated light on the possibilities related to this.
:thumbsup:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

22. Oh, it's unconstitutional alright.

I wasn't aware of the "provision" but that "provision" speaks to consciousness of guilt don't it?



From the Great Arthur Kirkland:



Arthur Kirkland: That man is guilty! that man, there, that man is a slime! he is a *slime*! If he's supposed to go free, then something really wrong is goin' on here!

Judge Rayford: Mr. Kirkland you are out of order!

Arthur Kirkland: You're out of order! You're out of order! The whole trial is out of order! They're out of order! That man, that sick, crazy, depraved man, raped and beat that woman there, and he'd like to do it again! It's just a show! It's a show! It's "Let's Make A Deal"! "Let's Make A Deal"! Hey Frank, you wanna "Make A Deal"? I got an insane judge who likes to beat the shit out of women! Whaddya wanna gimme Frank, 3 weeks probation?

Frank Bowers: DAMMIT!

Arthur Kirkland: <to Judge Fleming> You, you sonofabitch, you! You're supposed to STAND for somethin'! You're supposed to protect people! But instead you rape and murder them!

<dragged out of court by bailiffs>

Arthur Kirkland: You killed McCullough! You killed him! Hold it! Hold it! I just completed my opening statement!

[StraightDope]

36. I know that the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws...

Wouldn't that clause apply to any retroactive legislation?

[gratuitous]

40. That's a good question

"Ex post facto" usually refers to a law being applied retroactively to a wrongdoing. If you walk across the grass in the park on Tuesday, but the City doesn't put up a "Keep Off the Grass" sign until Wednesday, you can't be prosecuted for walking on the grass when it wasn't a crime.

But if you walk on the grass on Wednesday, and on Thursday, the City decides to take down the signs, you can still be liable to prosecution, because it was illegal when you did it, unless the City decides that it will grant an amnesty to everyone currently facing prosecution under the old law. I don't know if the Military Commissions law absolves perpetrators of all prior crimes that it now declares to be legal. Certainly the United States is still under its treaty obligations (like the Geneva Conventions), and wrongdoers are liable to international courts for their crimes.

[leftchick]

18. by whom?

I pray!

[Judi Lynn]

12. Yep. What's the payoff in being the pResident if you don't get to torture folks?

Hardly worth the effort for some people.

Click:
http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-37,GGLD:en&q=Abu+Ghraib

[Solly Mack]

14. Yep

exactly...

[The Stranger]

35. Tell Harry and Nancy to repeal that shit right fucking now!

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

9. Kick

[Straight Shooter]

10. Oh, it's just a few bad apples ....

... who happen to be inhabited by a really nasty worm called Dubya.

You just know that if there were anything he wanted to call the shots on, it would be torture. That's his forte.

[Solly Mack]

13. Yet he's still free..still President

[Fridays Child]

15. So, the whole thing is damning...

[rateyes]

16. You're kidding me, right?

The POTUS actually signing an order authorizing torture? Who'dathunkit?

:sarcasm:

[LynnTheDem]

21. Secret gulags. Invasions. Officially sanctioned torture.

Who the fuck ever would have thought it of America.

America's Dark Ages circa 2000-2008.

[Lars39]

23. This is what Ellesberg was encouraging! Hard proof.

Incriminating documents. :bounce:

[civildisoBDence]

24. Enjoy Paraguay, DUHbya. Hope you meet some fellow Nazis.

I mean, I hope you meet some Nazis, fella.

Newsprism

[mom cat]

39. I think that Paraguy recinded its agreement not to hand Americans

(Bush, etc) over to the International Criminal Court!

[lumpy]

25. Kickety kick

v

[Miss Chybil]

26. I'm wondering how they were ever able to convict the guy who blew

up the WTC the first time without all these secret jails and fancy torture techniques. Thank God, Bush has it all under control now. I'm sure lots of terrorists will be doing hard labor for the rest of their lives thanks to him. /sarcasm

[petgoat]

30. how they were ever able to convict the guy who blew up the WTC

The FBI informant Emad Salem was so close to the 93 WTC bombing plot that he
wanted to substitute harmless powder for the explosives in the bomb. His
supervisors told him to let the bombing go forward.

A US Army Sergeant, Ali Mohammed, had been giving weapons training to the
bombers. He was not indicted. Later he pled guilty to involvement in
al Qaeda's African embassy bombings. His plea bargain was negotiated by
Patrick Fitzgerald. Ali Mohanmmed was never sentenced, and nobody knows
where he is now. I guess that's gummint business and none of our business?

[Maraya1969]

27. Shouldn't Bush now be prosecuted by the German courts like the others?

I hate it that he has escaped official blame so far.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Senator]

29. Whew! ... the smoke -- cough! ... Somebody fire a gun in here?!?

Actually, this is not really "news."

Do anyone imagine that the war crime of "secret prisons" actually happened without the signature of the War Criminal in Chief?

As I keep saying, there's nothing to "investigate."

The impeachable offenses are huge, decaying elephant carcasses in the National Living Room.

---

[The Count]

31. Dayum! Another bad apple! Who-d have thunk it?

[OneBlueSky]

32. yet another documented impeachable/prosecutable offense . . . n/t

.

[The Stranger]

34. I WANT JUSTICE. I WANT IMPEACHMENT.

[Marnieworld]

44. impeachment is too good for them

That's a political way of firing from their jobs.

You want an indictment by a criminal court with convictions resulting in an appropriate punishment. War crimes. That's these are. Treason. They broke laws.

[The Stranger]

46. OKAY, I WANT THAT TOO THEN.

[jpwhite]

37. I would rather the CIA do interrogations

I as a soldier in the US Army would much rather have the CIA do interrogations than have US soldiers to question people who are high up on the leadership of the insurgents. They are trained to do it. Now, whether these tactics are considered "torture" I think we should have hearings about this. If anyone would know what is "torture" and what is not is Sen. McCain. Let's get his expertise in this and find out what is okay and what is not. Or why not bring in Gen. Clark or Gen. Powell?

James
[e-mail]

[TankLV]

56. McCain is an IDIOT and would approve of bunkerboy sodomizing little boys on stage...

He already approved of the torture...

He has lost any credibility that he had, if he ever had any.

He is a disgrace to his uniform and is unworthy of serious consideration for what is and what is not just/legal...

[EFerrari]

57. McCain and Powell are in this up to their eyeballs.

McCain pushed a fake reform bill and Powell helped sponsor the "Contra" war in Nicaragua where this kind of "interrogation" was in wide use.

They're both dirty and it don't wash off.

[lovuian]

41. Bush is War criminal

and this proves it... What was he thinking ???
I knew the CIA was going to screw him when they had the choice...

[depakid]

42. To The Hague...

I think the international community should treat Bush et al. like Pinochet. Or any other person responsible for crimes against humanity.

[donkeyotay]

43. Under the torturous Unitary Executive theory, these had to exist

Damn the constitution, what was really meant was that the President is the commander in chief, see, and if something bad happens, he has the right to do anything to anybody to keep us safe. The torture had to have his approval. He's the bad apple in chief.

[Marie26]

45. That should come in handy

for the War Crimes prosecution. Not much plausible denaiblity when Bush personally signs the torture memo.

[smoogatz]

47. Torturin' George.

I wonder, when he's locked up beofre being put on trial for war crimes, will they leak photos of him in his tightie-whities? Will they check him for head-lice?

[laststeamtrain]

48. Slightly longer version of same story on SF Chronicle front page today

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/15/MNGB4MCT5Q1.DTL&feed=rss.news

[nam78_two]

49. I feel better reading this kinda thing nowadays

I kinda feel like there is hope that this will all come back to bite em in the ass...
Earlier every added bit of evidence would just make me more bitter since I was sure nothing would come of it...

[thereismore]

50. we don't torture. we only outline possible torture techniques. nt

[donkeyotay]

51. Makes you wonder when they talk about protecting sources and methods

... ya mean all those bogus terra alerts came from detainees who were being tortured?

[SunDrop23]

53. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney = war criminals...hang em high!

[demo dutch]

54. Do I smell impeachment????

[DWilliamsamh]

58. Just the LATEST smoking gun... but this one points @ GWB!

[FernBell]

59. kick

[WePurrsevere]

60. kick n/t

[StrictlyRockers]

61. CIA acknowledges Bush signed secret directive on interrogating terror suspect

This might not be news to a lot of folks on DU.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/15/news/intel.php

CIA acknowledges Bush signed secret directive on interrogating terror suspect
By David Johnston / The New York Times Published: November 15, 2006

WASHINGTON: The CIA has acknowledged for the first time the existence of two classified documents, including a directive signed by President George W. Bush, that have guided the agency's interrogation and detention of terror suspects.

The CIA referred to the documents in a letter sent last Friday from the agency's associate general counsel, John McPherson, to lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union.

The contents of the documents were not revealed, but one of them is "a directive signed by President Bush granting the CIA the authority to set up detention facilities outside the United States and outlining interrogation methods that may be used against detainees," the civil liberties union said, based on its review of published accounts.

The second document, according to the group, is a Justice Department legal analysis "specifying interrogation methods that the CIA may use against top Al Qaeda members."

<...>


I am so proud to be an American.

SR

[librechik]

62. "We Don't Torture!--heheh-cept fer me." n/t

[acmavm]

63. So, would this make the Decider a war criminal in some

nations? Will this make it a dicey deal for him to travel to some countries??

[havocmom]

67. Wonder if some in the CIA just grounded the Puppet Racketeer In Chief

The chess game still seems to be going on.

My money is on the good spooks. They sure seem to be patient about how they play the game.

Bless those folks in public service (covert and non) who really do love America, serve well, and remember their oaths are to the institutions and instruments and NOT to any particular person/persons.

Bless them, everyone.

[AnneD]

69. Sometimes...

we hang by that most slender of threads. The Saturday Night Massacre and Deep Throat are examples. Who knows what unseen person is guided by true patriotic motives, willing to risk much for this beloved country.

[Demit]

64. I can only imagine the gleam in Bush's eyes as he read those interrogation

methods, sadistic prick that he is.

[schmuls]

66. So True! He is a Mo-fucking Cock-sucker, (not that cock sucking

can't be fun!). Sadistic brainless frat boy.

[StrictlyRockers]

68. What did Cheney say a couple of weeks back about water boarding being a no-brainer?

This administration is unbelievable. I cannot, in good conscience, sit by while the people of my country advocate torture. I feel like I am living in bizzaro-world that this is even happening. Can't we do something about these guys? Are all Republicans sadists? Or just pedophile masochists?

[LynnTheDem]

65. "What a nation may do to others, will do to its own."

And bush's America has already tortured American citizens.

Indefinite detainments, no trials, no Habeus Corpus, no lawyers, no due process whatsoever.

Torture.

Secret gulags.

Invasions.

Occupations.

Other than body count -so far- (and at half a million, bush's count is rising fast) what's the difference between the rightwingnut asshole bush & the rightwingnut asshole Hitler? Other than Hitler was actually intelligent.

[MGKrebs]

70. Haven't they been prosecuting (and convicting!) torturers?

That Sgt, and the woman who got pregnant by him? What, were they even outside of what the Prez said they could do? Or, were they not allowed to introduce this document?

[librechik]

71. Whattayou know--this story is gaining traction!

let's get those Bush Bastards!

[redqueen]

72. No one here is shocked, I'm sure.

As for the average person who gets their news from mainstream sources (or worse, right-wing ones), this may come as quite a rude shock.

Then again... I do suspect some (most?) are vicious and sociopathic enough to approve of these methods.

[woodsgirl]

73. Just hope

the courts will release the videos of children getting
sodomized by our cia...supposedly to get their parents to
confess to (what) That would help a lot with the war crimes
case. Seymor Hersch has talked about it, which gives
credibility. A judge has said they should be released but is
currently on appeal by the govt.What with state secrets and
all...WE never got to see all of the pictures from Abu Ghraib
either.To see just exactly our tax dollars are paying for.

[yellowcanine]

74. Could be impeachment material. WDGS? ( What did George sign?)

Look. See George sign. See George sign the torture memo.