Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. - Albert Einstein

Methods Defined
by Hal_10000

For a long time, we were told by “conservatives” that Abu Ghraib was a bunch of out of control individuals. Then the torture memos surfaced. The meme shifted to “the ~~King~~ President can do whatever he wants!” Just so’s you know, this is what you get when you give someone that kind of power.

In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News.

The so-called Principals who participated in the meetings also approved the use of “combined” interrogation techniques—using different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time—on terrorist suspects who proved difficult to break, sources said.

Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects—whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.

The high-level discussions about these “enhanced interrogation techniques” were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed—down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.

The advisers were members of the National Security Council’s Principals Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise President Bush on issues of national security policy.

At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

...

According to a former CIA official involved in the process, CIA headquarters would receive cables from operatives in the field asking for authorization for specific techniques. Agents, worried about overstepping their boundaries, would await guidance in particularly complicated cases dealing with high-value detainees, two CIA sources said.

Highly placed sources said CIA directors Tenet and later Porter Goss along with agency lawyers briefed senior advisers, including Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Powell, about detainees in CIA custody overseas.

“It kept coming up. CIA wanted us to sign off on each one every time,” said one high-ranking official who asked not to be identified. “They’d say, ‘We’ve got so and so. This is the plan.’”

Sources said that at each discussion, all the Principals present approved.

This sounds to me like it wasn’t just legal advise that consisted of covering the eyes and saying “What Geneva Convention?!”. These were nuts-and-bolts discussions of torture.

Think about this. Think about this before you revert to “Terrorists! Get ‘em!” mode. We had interrogation methods being approved by Condi Rice, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell (WTF?!), Rummy, a bunch of lawyers. How many of these people were experienced interrogators?

This gets at the heart of my problem with this Administration. We are being governed by a bunch of over-educated halfwits sitting around speculating on effective policy. It’s no better than a bunch of liberal college professors deciding how to run the economy over afternoon tea. I wrote a few weeks ago about the danger of applying “toy models” to society—of trying to force reality to conform to your theories. This is a perfect example. We have a bunch of people with no experience in interrogation deciding to torture people because they saw it on TV once or read a book about it.

From the horrific planning of Iraq to the boondoggle that is Homeland Security to the fiasco of Katrina relief, we are seeing over and over again how the Bushies are not only mind-bogglingly incompetent but arrogant about it. After the biggest intelligence failure in American history on 9/11, they decided they were still more qualified than anyone else to decide what interrogation methods to use on terror suspects. The result was a political nightmare, a compromised national soul and a nation that was less safe.

Update: Based on the comments, I think I made my point poorly. Apologies.

There is a history here. This Administration circulated memos (not the Yoo ones) that said that the gloves were off with terror suspects; that Geneva didn’t apply to them (a false assertion). In trashing the legal and moral framework of interrogation, they created a legal and moral vacuum. The CIA then did what the CIA had to do—they started clearing everything through the White House. And cabinet-level people were more than happy to sit around and decide what interrogation techniques should be used and had their Legal Weasels (Yoo and Gonzalez) justify it.

We should not expect the hierarchy of our government to decide what interrogation techniques they think are effective and issue memos torturing the legal framework until they can condone it. We have these things called “laws” and other things called “treaties” that spell this out explicitly.

Look, for two hundred years, we did not need to have cabinet meetings to decide how to interrogate people. We had rules and we stuck to them and we prosecuted people who broke them. Then this Administration came in and said that there are no rules, that Bush is the fucking Commander in Chief by God and he gets to determine how our government operates based on whatever God whispers into his ear.

Now we’re finding out what this unitary executive theory entails. Cabinet level meetings to decide how and when to torture people. A CIA that is not turning to rules and regulations, but getting the word from on high as to what is doable.

This is not the fucking Rule of Law, people. This is the Rule of Man. This is arbitrary law. The whole reason for having laws is so that we don’t have every decision being made by the President.

The Administration’s defenders are acting like we’ve never had to collect intelligence before; as though we have suddenly wandered into unfamiliar territory and it was only the guiding light of the Justice Department that could lead us to salvation. Bullshit. We’ve been interrogating combatants—legal and illegal—since Washington captured Boston. We did have rules, explicit ones, for what was and was not doable. It was only when this Administration came up with their cockamamie constitutional theories that we suddenly had to rewrite everything.

Bush Derangement Syndrome? Maybe. But for me, that term applies equally to those will mindlessly defend the constitutional and legal shennanigans this administration commits.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 04/10/08 at 11:00 AM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments

Posted by Sean Galbraith on 04/10/08 at 12:21 PM from

Waterboarding isn’t “simulated drowning” it is “actual drowning” that happens to stop before finished.

Posted by Thrill on 04/10/08 at 01:00 PM from

No, Sean, if you want to argue semantics; the dictionary definition of “drown” is “Die from being submerged in water, getting water into the lungs, and asphyxiating; “The child drowned in the lake”. The act of drowning does in fact require that the victim die. Waterboarding simulates the sensation of drowning, but if the person does not die, it is not “actual drowning”.

For a long time, we were told by “conservatives” that Abu Ghraib was a bunch of out of control individuals.

Hal, could you show me where in Yoo’s memos I can find the phrase “be sure to put them in naked human pyramids and take lots of pictures on your personal camera so it can be given to the media.” I’m just asking.

We had interrogation methods being approved by Condi Rice, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell (WTF?!), Rummy, a bunch of lawyers. How many of these people were experienced interrogators?

I would think a bunch of lawyers would actually be qualified to tell the President what is and is not legal. I know that’s a stretch. It is appropriate that such high level Administration figures should be involved in such decisions. They were, of course, not the only “Principals”. This particular story does not mention who else was in on the meetings. Furthermore, it was the CIA that was requesting to use the techniques. You know, the people who are actually doing the interrogations and know what they’re talking about?

We have a bunch of people with no experience in interrogation deciding to torture people because they saw it on TV once or read a book about it.

And you want to put into the Presidency an inexperienced lawyer to negotiate with terrorist sponsors despite the fact that he has no diplomatic experience. What is your point?

...they decided they were still more qualified than anyone else to decide what interrogation methods to use on terror suspects.

No, they correctly assumed responsibility for what was being decided. It’s called “accountability”. Should they have just let the CIA do whatever they wanted without answering to anybody? Would that have made you happy?

From the horrific planning of Iraq to the boondoggle that is Homeland Security to the fiasco of Katrina relief, we are seeing over and over again how the Bushies are not only mind-bogglingly incompetent but arrogant about it.

Wow, the rarely seen “BDS Deluxe”. You even threw in Katrina, as if the handling of that catastrophe wasn’t the fault of the local and state government. Also, I think Clinton Administration-holdover George Tenet might be a little surprised to be called a “Bushie”.

Your basic point seems to be that the Bush Administration was arrogant and failed to stop 9/11 over intelligence problems and then you criticize the Bush Administration for being arrogant by getting involved in intelligence-gathering issues. Yeah. Alright, Hal.
What an awful post.

Posted by on 04/10/08 at 01:50 PM from

Wow, the rarely seen “BDS Deluxe”

No, thats called the BDS trifecta.

In the CIA’s diligence in crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s, they made the required notifications (including all members, both R’s and D’s, on both congressional intelligence committees)including the White House along with a mandate and guidelines for their activities. Isn’t this what we expect them to do?

Posted by Thrill on 04/10/08 at 01:54 PM from

No, rich; they hate it when that happens because it ruins the ongoing narrative that Bush is some sort of a monarchist. It’s not as much fun, you see?

Posted by on 04/10/08 at 02:43 PM from

Katrina? Katrina?

Please.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 04/10/08 at 03:03 PM from

Hal, could you show me where in Yoo’s memos I can find the phrase “be sure to put them in naked human pyramids and take lots of pictures on your personal camera so it can be given to the media.” I’m just asking.

Not Yoo’s memos. The earlier ones that said the gloves were off and tacitly said they were going to look the other way at what went on. It’s the Prison Experiments all over again. What did they expect to happen when they said their were no rules?

In the CIA’s diligence in crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s, they made the required notifications (including all members, both R’s and D’s, on both congressional intelligence committees)including the White House along with a mandate and guidelines for their activities. Isn’t this what we expect them to do?

See my update.

Katrina? Katrina

Oh yes, I forgot. The Bush Administration bears absolutely ZERO responsibility for that particular goatfuck.

Posted by on 04/10/08 at 03:34 PM from

Hal, you basically admit it yourself--your judgement is severely compromised by BDS. This idea that Bush has somehow tossed out the rule of law and is a sort of monarch is just absurd. Yeah, he’s made plenty of mistakes (who hasn’t?), but you and many others quickly take those mistakes and turn them into some sort of conspiracy narrative that conveniently aligns with your own distorted perceptions.

Posted by on 04/10/08 at 03:37 PM from

And cabinet-level people were more than happy to sit around and decide what interrogation techniques should be used and had their Legal Weasels (Yoo and Gonzalez) justify it.

You are insinuating that the process went one way when I would bet it went the other. More than likely the CIA briefed the White House personel on who they were dealing with, what they wanted to get out of them, and what methods they thought likely to work, then the WH people batted it around and gave their assent.

This is one the those issues where opinions are pretty much drawn in the sand so whatever side you find yourself on is the side you are comfortable with. But putting the issue of coersive interrogation techniques aside, I would much prefer to have CIA treading lightly, getting clarification one what is authorized, getting it in writing and reclarified so their is no misunderstanding, ambiquity and no wiggle room, as opposed to the doing whatever willy nilly with no supervsion and no mandate, no rules in place, just do whatever you want to do and don’t tell us about it. Can’t you see the difference?

Posted by on 04/10/08 at 03:46 PM from

Katrina? Actually trying to discuss things to follow the rule of law?

What in the hell has happened to this blog? The quality is just non existent. I can understand being unhappy with Bush - I am. But to criticize the above process and support Obama? This site is no longer libertarian. Another site bites the dust.

I just can’t believe this happened at RTFLC. I know the party of R has changed and is basically the same party as the dems, but so has this site. Posters claiming hatred for Bush for his spending and erosion of civil rights then proceed to support Obama who will do more damage by being more left and hating individual rights even more? Where is the logic this place used to be so famous for?

Maybe when Lee gets back the quality will go back up. Somehow, I doubt it event then. Again, I hate Bush as much as the next person because I think he has set the conservative cause back 20 years, but this post just highlights how far this site has fallen.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 04/10/08 at 03:53 PM from

But to criticize the above process and support Obama?

When I endorse Obama over McCain, you can make that claim. I’ve supported him over Hillary. That does not mean I’m voting for him in November. For a variety of reason that I have spelled out in detail. I have a post going up later tonight on this subject.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 04/10/08 at 04:02 PM from

Actually trying to discuss things to follow the rule of law?

No, this was discussing things to get around the rule of law. Having people decide what interrogation techniques are doable rather than resorting to the law that has governed us for decades it not following the rule of law. That’s the beauty of law. It’s written down.

Posted by on 04/10/08 at 05:47 PM from

Hal, the problem is that the law doesn’t apply to these terrorists the same way it applies to you and us.

Posted by on 04/10/08 at 05:58 PM from

compromised national soul

This is one of those mind numbingly stupid phraises i wouldn’t expect to find in your post Hal. Really this post is almost all opinion and zero substance.

King President

Saying things like this simply highlights how high a mountain of stupid this blog as climbed. Lee needs to be the solitary author again. When Lee makes an argument he uses facts and usually good reasoning.

Look, for two hundred years, we did not need to have cabinet meetings to decide how to interrogate people. We had rules and we stuck to them and we prosecuted people who broke them

This is also bullshit, especially considering the fact that in 1900’s we were doing things like torturing and summarily executing rebel Phillipinos. Or maybe you forget how our government and its soldiers massacred and tortured thousands of native Americans and had fucking bounties on their head. Seriously this idealistic notion of a liberal, accepting and merciful U.S. comes from nowhere in my mind. If you need another example you can examine how Lincoln unilaterally imprisoned hundreds of U.S. citizens during the civil war.

Right, the U.S. has simply never deviated from the rules?

Posted by on 04/10/08 at 06:28 PM from

King President

Saying things like this simply highlights how high a mountain of stupid this blog as climbed. Lee needs to be the solitary author again. When Lee makes an argument he uses facts and usually good reasoning.

Lee has used the same term many times.

I’m not agreeing with Hal, but I read nothing in his post that I wouldn’t expect to hear from Lee as well.

Posted by HARLEY on 04/10/08 at 09:00 PM from

 Bullshit.  We’ve been interrogating combatants—legal and illegal—since Washington captured Boston.  We did have rules, explicit ones, for what was and was not doable.  It was only when this Administration came up with their cockamamie constitutional theories that we suddenly had to rewrite everything. 

you know, on the surface, that sounds all good and true, but underneath, the sad fact is that the military and “intelligence” agencys have resorted to theses extra legal means many times, though out our history.
Bush was not the first to come up with this, anyone got any idea how Gen. Sherman got Confederates to talk?
Or how spc ops personal got the VC to talk?

from the sound of these meeting , yes Hal , you got a point theses people were not qualified to make decision on interrogation tequines, however this to me any way, brings something else to light. To me it sounds like that tthe enhances interrogation techinuqes, were limited to a small handfull of alQuada higher ups, leading me to presume, that the Abuse was no where near as wide spread as we believed.

but still, this is profoundly disturbing.

Posted by HARLEY on 04/10/08 at 09:05 PM from

For a long time, we were told by “conservatives” that Abu Ghraib was a bunch of out of control individuals.

those out of control individuals were NAT Guard/ Reserves, whos regular job was......................... PRISON GUARDS!
Look at those pics, does that look like any kinda of interrogation methods you ever heard of, or maybe its was some prison guards finally getting off on a power trip on persons who would not fight back.

Posted by on 04/10/08 at 09:55 PM from

Lee has used the same term many times.

I’m not agreeing with Hal, but I read nothing in his post that I wouldn’t expect to hear from Lee as well.

You are right. What I should have said however, is that when lee goes into a scathing invective he backs it up with plethora of facts a solid reasoning.

Most of Hal’s posts are grounded in facts, but this one is definately lacking. I am simply saying this site was much more interesting when it was 1 or 3 articles per day by lee. Now its 20 articles per day. Is it a coincidence that Lee’s posts seem to always generate the most discussion?

Posted by Thrill on 04/10/08 at 10:01 PM from

I think a lot of it has to do with WVR’s posts burying everyone else’s before discussion can really get going.

What cracks me up is that Hal’s post gets ripped completely to shreds and then he claims in the update that he just didn’t make his point. As if we were the ones who are being dim.

We know what you said the first time, Hal, and it was ludicrous. The update didn’t do you any favors either. I’m only being hard on you because I expect better. Call it “tough love”.

Posted by on 04/10/08 at 10:07 PM from

Yea im sorry but WVR’s posts are usually vapid and uninteresting. Whenever wvr attempts some form of true political criticism, he spouts idiotic nonsense. Babbling on about “unthinkable think tanks,” and other generic soundbites. The reason I’ve always read this blog was to get another deep political perspective from my own. Not some 2 sentence quip about unimportant issues.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 04/11/08 at 02:45 AM from

What cracks me up is that Hal’s post gets ripped completely to shreds and then he claims in the update that he just didn’t make his point. As if we were the ones who are being dim.

No. Usually, when I get ripped, I don’t bother. But I feel like I was off my game today, not writing very clearly. Hence the update. I looked back and the original post was kind of muddy.

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Next entry: More Thoughts on China

Previous entry: Please Don't Mention That Briar Patch