White House: We "Definitely Want To Consider" Using Waterboarding Again

[marmar]

from AlterNet's PEEK:



White House: We "Definitely Want To Consider" Using Waterboarding Again

Posted by Satyam Khanna, Think Progress at 1:10 PM on February 6, 2008.

Despite its hedging, the White House made clear today it very well may commit illegal torture again.



In congressional testimony yesterday, CIA director Michael Hayden confirmed that his agency used waterboarding on three al Qaeda suspects. In 2006, Hayden banned the use of waterboarding in CIA interrogations. The Pentagon also banned its employees from using it, and the FBI said its investigators do not use coercive tactics in interviewing terror suspects.

But in today's gaggle, White House said that it may approve the use of waterboarding again "depend(ing) upon circumstances":

"It will depend upon circumstances," spokesman Tony Fratto said, adding "the belief that an attack might be imminent, that could be a circumstance that you would definitely want to consider."

Later, in a press briefing, Fratto tried to distance himself from these remarks, claiming that he only was talking about "the process" of approving waterboarding. "I'm not speculating," he declared.

Fratto said this morning that if used again, waterboarding would "need the president's approval" and would notify "appropriate members of Congress."

Last week, Attorney General Michael Mukasey repeatedly refused to declare the practice illegal. Yesterday, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and CIA Director Michael Hayden "left open the option of reinstating it."

Despite its hedging, the White House made clear today it very well may commit illegal torture again.

Transcript:

QUESTION: Earlier, you suggested that it would not be ruled out for possible use in the future.

FRATTO: Again, I think I'd refer you to the testimony yesterday where the intelligence chiefs didn't rule anything out.

What I did talk about was the process whereby the administration would consider any enhanced interrogation techniques.

And that process includes the director of the Central Intelligence Agency bringing the proposal to the attorney general, where a review would be conducted to determine if the plan would be legal and effective. At that point, the proposal would go to the president. The president would listen to the determinations of his advisers and make a decision.

If he made a decision to authorize a specific interrogation technique, part of that process also involves going to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and the chairmen and ranking members of the Judiciary Committees and to inform them that a change in the program has taken place.

QUESTION: But the fact that the process exists suggests that it could be used again? You're not ruling it out.

FRATTO: I'm not speculating at all on what circumstances in the future would cause the director of the CIA to make a proposal in that way. That's something for Director Hayden to address.

What we do know is that they're taking -- they take the interrogation program very seriously. They understand that it must be done with safeguards and under the rule of law.

Every interrogation technique used in this program was brought to the Department of Justice, and the Department of Justice made a determination as to its lawfulness. And that allowed the Central Intelligence Agency to move forward with their program.

Any change would follow the process that I just outlined.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/76216/

[niyad]

1. and I want to consider using it on every single member of this lying, thieving, murderous

maladministration, ALL its present and past members.

[EOTE]

2. Again? You mean they stopped?

Wow, it's so comforting to believe that perhaps at one singular point in time, this administration wasn't breaking international law.

[Warpy]

3. I think Congress should make it provisional on every member

of the White House political staff approving the procedure after undergoing it for a period of not less than two but not more than ten hours (the real hell is not knowing if it will ever stop) and signing their approval of the procedure immediately upon its cessation, with the proviso that any time left on the clock up to the full ten hours may be completed at any time at the discretion of Congress.

Perhaps then they'd decide why the practice of waterboarding was one of the major complaints against the Japanese Secret Police at the war crimes trials after WWII and why they were convicted of these crimes.

[Disturbed]

4. "Enhanced Interrogation" is Torture.

These War Criminals believe that using benign terms turns their acts of Torture into Legal Acts.
We know that Busholini authorized Torture. Will he be held accountable?