SCOTT HORTON—The Decision to Torture Came from the Top

[kpete]

The New Republic

The TNR Q&A: Phillippe Sands
by Scott Horton
The author of 'The Torture Tapes' describes how coercive interrogation came to be the policy of the United States government.
Post Date Tuesday, April 22, 2008

.....................


British writer and international lawyer Philippe Sands is the author of The Torture Team , in stores May 5, which chronicles the role lawyers played in the introduction of the Bush administration's program of coercive interrogation techniques. Here, Scott Horton talks to Sands about his findings.

.................

TNR: In The Torture Team, you focus on a single document, Donald Rumsfeld's December 2, 2002 approval of extraordinarily aggressive interrogation techniques. You give us the document's genesis, and the revolt within the Pentagon that led to its being formally withdrawn. But what you show is a process as much as a document, and that process appears to me to be a conscious, studied circumvention of the normal procedure followed by the U.S. military. Do you agree?

Sands: When the administration released the December 2002 and other memos, it told a story that essentially said this: The new interrogation techniques came from the bottom up and had nothing to do with policy decisions driven from the top. I wanted to explore the truth of that account, by trying to talk to as many of the people involved in the decision as I could. I journeyed around America, tracking down the key players--amongst many others, Diane Beaver and Mike Dunlavey at Guantánamo; General Tom Hill at SOUTHCOM; General Dick Myers at Joint Chiefs and his lawyer, Jane Dalton; Doug Feith at the Pentagon; and Jim Haynes at the general counsel's office. I racked up hundreds of hours of interviews with them, from which emerged a clear account of the process that was actually followed--though, of course, there are many more points of detail still to come out. The pressure for the new techniques came from the top and there was input from the top into the identification of the techniques. In pushing forward the decision-making process normal approval process was circumvented, as General Dick Myers at Joint Chiefs confirmed to me, saying, "This was not the way this should have come about." Jim Haynes is one of the key players in this story. He was general counsel at the DoD throughout the period, Donald Rumsfeld's Harvard Law School-trained lawyer who, it turned out, was intimately involved in the key decisions from a far earlier stage than his public accounts suggest. He may not have been the "brains" behind the whole operation--that designation must surely go to David Addington, Vice President Cheney's lawyer at the time, and Haynes' mentor. But Haynes was deeply and constantly involved.

...........................

The administration told a story which claimed that Diane Beaver's legal advice was the basis for the Haynes recommendation and the Rumsfeld approval of the new techniques. That is false. When Jim Haynes wrote his memo of November 27, 2002, recommending blanket approval for 15 new techniques of interrogation, and leaving three others open for future use (including waterboarding), he had knowledge of the contents of the Department of Justice legal memo from August 1, 2002, signed by Jay Bybee and written with the assistance of John Yoo. That document provided Jim Haynes with the cover he sought, not Diane Beaver's legal advice. She was hung out to dry by Jim Haynes, in a manner that was unbecoming of his office, deeply unfair to her and reflected what will look to many like a deliberate effort to cover up what actually happened.

I have no doubt about the early, close, and active involvement of the upper echelons of the administration in the decision to request, approve and then use harsh techniques of interrogation on "Detainee 063," Mohammed Al Qahtani. The story that emerged from the interviews was clear and it was consistent (plus, I had the opportunity to put my findings to Jim Haynes, who was the final piece of the jigsaw). The administration's 'bottom-up' narrative--as spun by Mr. Haynes and others--is false, inaccurate, and misleading, and I believe it was knowingly intended to be so. The administration has scapegoated individuals who were on the ground at Guantánamo in order to protect itself. Names that could have been blacked out were not. That is deplorable, and the cover-up of what really happened will likely expose those who engaged in it to even greater difficulty.

more at:
http://tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=80cf3ce9-d5c0-43d8-a5f3-5dbff7210220

[glowing]

1. Really, how many of us didn't think it wasn't coming from the top.. those

sick bastards..

[ProgressiveFool]

2. K & R

[spanone]

3. the question is, what will be done about it?

[nichomachus]

4. And, by "top" you mean Dick Cheney. Right?

[Uncle Joe]

5. Damn! Since 2004

Have you ever made a bad post kpete? I getting tired of having to recommend all your posts!:mad:






Thanks for the thread.:)

[Preston120]

6. The Last Congress gave them immunity, how does this get refered to the world court?

[Senator]

14. They did NOT get "immunity"

First, because there cannot be such a thing in absence of a controlling court ruling overturning US CODE Title 18,2441 - which actually in itself would be a war crime. But more specifically, because they did not get the language the WH wanted into the bill. Senators Warner, McCain, Graham, et. al. denied them the direct approval of Congress.

On the point of torture and war crimes, the bill specifically recommits to our treaty obligations and merely acknowledges that the executive at times does take actions that are not done with the co-operation of Congress. It makes no comment on what those actions might be and does not give any additional "lawbreaking" authority that didn't already exist.

It's not surprising that many think and say that some form of immunity was granted because that was "the battle that was shaping." But the fact that the war criminals lost, and could not persuade the Senate to join them in active criminality was deep-sixed by the euphemedia. In fact, you have to actually read the WH draft of the bill and compare it to what passsed to see that phrases like "rights to be denied to detainees" (yes, they actually put that oxymoronic and self-incriminating phrase in) were not part of the bill.

Of course, they then tried to claim some form of immunity via "Rule By Signing Statement." But that's just masturbatory.

Still, with impeachophobia running rampant inside the brainsick beltway, the world court is the only place likely to provide any justice or accountability. And efforts are already underway in Germany to find a way to lodge indictments. More should follow, particularly as it becomes clearer that DC Dems refuse to do their sworn duty and uphold our treaty obligations.

===

[Supersedeas]

7. the list of creepy lawyers associated with the Bushies is growing--Goodling, Sampson, Libby, Adding

and so on and so forth and to this list, we can now add Jim Haynes

[Hydra]

8. This is an excellent piece

It gives us a peak behind the curtain as to who did it...because we all knew it was coming from the top, and the propaganda machines have been going non-stop in their attempt to legitimize torture.

And people thought I was crying wolf for the last 7 years when I said we were the new Nazi Germany.

[Octafish]

9. Kick to the pants of the TRAITORS! (nt)

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. Proof of the obvious takes a long time, doesn't it? n/t

[Supersedeas]

12. pushing the Media into a corner where they have to report it -- takes even longer

[annabanana]

11. These stories can now be buried on the front page of any written

news source. They are hidden in plain sight as long as the amplifiers (tv repeaters) are shut off.

[L. Coyote]

13. It has always been well-understood that these authorizations can ONLY come from the very top!

Not news, except that this reinforces the obvious.

[Elspeth]

15. We knew it had to be. Grunts don't just decide to torture on their own in such a uniform fashion

and in such large numbers while under supervision. Of course it came from the top. My question is who the hell is at the top. They certainly don't care about America--or the people of any other nation. These are the truly treasonous. The people who really hate America.