Obama's First 100

Much is being made of President Obama's first 100 days in office and the tone that has been set for his policies during this time period. Various organizations, pundits, and politicians are issuing their own assessment on President Obama's performance thus far and attempting to read the tea leaves for what lies ahead.

Personally, I think that much of this coverage can be overblown and seem a little silly. It reminds me of ridiculous "holidays" like Sweetest Day where you ask yourself, is all the attention really that necessary? 100 is a nice, round number and all, but it really doesn't signify too much if you really think about it.

Regardless, the chatter persists and perhaps we can be persuaded to find value in taking a little time to review some of the actions taken by the Obama Administration (not that we haven't been doing this on Days 34, 81, and 94 of his Presidency).

Concentrating on foreign policy in this entry, I found myself agreeing with much of the assessment given by Human Rights Watch in their "Report Card" that they issued today. They broke down their report into areas in which President Obama has achieved key accomplishments, has made missteps and missed opportunities, and decisions where the jury is still out on how events will play out.

Key Accomplishments that are listed in the Report Card are:

- Closing Secret CIA Prisons
- Implementing the Ban on Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
- Repudiating Past Authorizations for Torture
- Bringing Saleh Kahlah al-Marri to Justice

Certainly, these decisions are worthy of praise and the speed with which some of these decisions were made (two days into office for some) underscores the vehement opposition that this Administration has to these policies. The President's decision to release the Bush era "torture memos" indicates that this Administration is interested in greater transparency and setting themselves apart from some of the Orwellian doublespeak and outright lies of the last eight years.

Some of the Missteps and Missed Opportunities listed in the Human Rights Watch report are as follows:

- Maintaining that the War is a rationale for holding suspected terrorists indefinitely without Trial
- Denying basic rights to prisoners at Bagram
- Adhering to the Bush Administration's Expansive View of the State Secrets Privilege

These missteps, in my view, are very problematic are incredibly discouraging for the hope of a fundamental change away from the policies of the last eight years. From the report:

One of the most potentially far-reaching Obama administration positions came to light in a Justice Department brief filed in Guantanamo litigation. On March 13, in response to a federal court order seeking a definition of the term "enemy combatant," the Obama administration claimed the authority to pick people up anywhere in the world on the grounds of support for or association with al Qaeda or the Taliban, and to hold them indefinitely in military detention. Rather than rejecting the Bush administration's ill-conceived notion of a "war on terror," the Obama administration merely discarded the phrase and tinkered with its form. The position expressed in the filing was a worrisome portent for the administration's future detention decisions.

This decision far from reverses the policy of the Bush Administration but is rather a continuation of the practice of indefinite detention without charge or trial. Closing Guantanamo Bay is a good thing, but it is merely treating a symptom without addressing the underlying disease of indefinite detention without a right to be charged or challenge said detention.

Also alarming is the Obama Administration's position on the use of the State Secrets Privilege. Not only is the Obama Administration using much of the same reasoning that the Bush Administration used surrounding this issue, but they have attempted to expand the rationale for using this privilege. Glenn Greenwald from February:

What was abusive and dangerous about the Bush administration's version of the States Secret privilege -- just as the Obama/Biden campaign pointed out -- was that it was used not (as originally intended) to argue that specific pieces of evidence or documents were secret and therefore shouldn't be allowed in a court case, but instead, to compel dismissal of entire lawsuits in advance based on the claim that any judicial adjudication of even the most illegal secret government programs would harm national security. That is the theory that caused the bulk of the controversy when used by the Bush DOJ -- because it shields entire government programs from any judicial scrutiny -- and it is that exact version of the privilege that the Obama DOJ yesterday expressly advocated (and, by implication, sought to preserve for all Presidents, including Obama).

The Obama Administration certainly had a golden opportunity to reign in some of the expanded executive powers that the Bush Administration worked so hard to fight for over the last eight years, but instead, they have shown a willingness to adapt to and even defend these very same powers that Obama once criticized while running for office.

The final category that Human Rights Watch listed on their report card dealt with "Ongoing or Incomplete Reforms". Listed under this category was:

- Closing the Military Detention Center at Guantanamo Bay
- Suspending the Unfair Military Commissions
- Accounting for Past Abuses
- Ensuring that Prisoners are not Returned to Torture

It will be important to see how this Administration deals with these significant issues. While Obama has pledged to close down the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, it is unclear how he will handle the estimated 240 prisoners that are being detained. A thorough review of each case is needed and those detainees who the government finds have credible evidence pending against them should be tried while those are being held on little to no evidence should be released.

While the heading in the Human Rights Watch report is labeled "Accounting for Past Abuses", they make clear that we need not simply account for these abuses, but assure that they never happen again by launching a thorough and wide-ranging investigation into the policies implemented after 9/11. From the report:

President Obama initially signaled a willingness to set up a non-partisan commission to investigate the abuses, but his office quickly backed away from the idea. The president also seems to have ruled out prosecuting CIA agents who carried out orders that they believed were legal, but the president left open the possibility of prosecuting those higher up the chain of command who gave orders to the CIA permitting detainees to be tortured.

Human Rights Watch urges President Obama to work with Congress to set up a commission of inquiry to investigate, document, and publicly report on post-9/11 counterterrorism-related abuses. The commission should make specific recommendations for individuals to be criminally investigated.

This recommendation by Human Rights Watch is not only appropriate for a country that prides itself on being a nation of laws, but necessary. An open inquiry into these abuses with recommendations for prosecution are the only way that we can, as Obama often mentions, productively "move forward". We cannot be a nation of Peggy Noonans and simply pretend that none of this happened. We must first address the issue and then work to hold those who broke the law to account for their crimes. A Truth Commission, like the one proposed by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), is simply not enough. While getting to the bottom of everything is important, it will be meaningless if the law is not upheld with consequences for its breach.

President Obama is correct to receive mixed reviews for his first 100 days in office. As noted above, there is some good, some bad, and some that is undecided. Much of the undecided is critical to see whether, as I wrote about before the election, this President will be a man who adapts to the existing institutions or a man who is ready to tear them down with the goal of building something better. This is Obama's challenge.

Slow Day for Bronson at the Enquirer?

The Cincinnati Enquirer's Peter Bronson must be having a slow blogging day. His entry today is entitled "A president who never stops running can't stand for anything".

In this entry he criticizes President Obama for traveling to various cities throughout the country instead of staying at his office in Washington D.C. because Bronson somehow thinks that Obama's travels reflect poorly on Obama's management skills:

So when does our new president ever show up at the office? Is he so thrilled with Air Force One that he just can't resist taking it for a spin every day? (How do those chastised auto executives feel about that, as they drive electric cars to D.C. to panhandle for bailouts because they were spanked for using jets?) Or is Obama still hooked on the campaign jones, the adoring crowds, the adulation and cheers, the fainting fans who laugh uproariously if he dents a dimple?

Bronson makes it sound like Obama is on vacation or giving stump speeches instead of visiting some of the areas that have been hit hardest by the economic crisis. Are not Presidents supposed to be in touch with the citizens of the country? I have no problem with a President who wants to visit different areas of the country to get a snapshot of how the economy is taking its toll on hardworking citizens.

Bronson then quotes Tony Blankly's latest piece in the Washington Times which criticizes Obama for apparently not knowing what would happen to the inmates at Guantanamo once he ordered the base closed. This stems from Obama asking his White House council if the executive order had been written in regard to the disposal of the detainees. Bronson uses both of these examples as indication that Obama has no management skills. Nevermind that Obama's order to close Guantanamo within one year includes a period of review so the Administration can decide what they should do with the detainees.

Using these examples to make Obama sound like some dunce who is gallivanting around the country on his jet while unable to grasp issues that need to be addressed for the policies that he is implementing is just a pathetic partisan attempt to make an issue out of no issue at all. A President who is always running can't stand for anything.....what?

How Does Accountability to Law Turn into Giving Terrorists "New Rights"?

Rachel Alexander, co-editor of the "Intellectual Conservative" website, has written a new piece entitled "Terrorists' Rights Versus Crime Prevention". Considering I have written about the issue of torture and the treatment of detainees quite a bit recently, the topic of Alexander's piece intrigued me, but as I continued to read further, the vague language and broad characterizations that Alexander uses in her source-free piece only worked to confuse many issues that have become hot topics over the last few years.

Alexander begins her piece:

Civil libertarians, including prominent conservatives like Rep. Ron Paul and former Rep. Bob Barr, have made loud objections to the U.S. government’s efforts to counteract terrorism in the wake of 9-11. In particular, they have protested the detainment and interrogation methods used on suspected terrorists at Gitmo, wiretapping, and other methods of surveillance. They don’t represent the majority of Americans, many who privately say anyone involved with terrorism should be executed. They don’t dare say this publically since the law has evolved over time to provide those accused of crimes certain privileges, labeling them “rights.”

She claims that the majority of Americans privately say that anyone involved with terrorism should be executed, but provides no source for this claim. By her own reasoning, a source wouldn't even exist for this claim because as she states, this is a feeling that Americans privately hold. This leads to the question of why Americans are hiding their "true" feelings. Why won't Americans say this publically? Alexander says that this is because the law has evolved over time to provide "those accused of crimes" privileges that have been labeled "rights" (quotes are hers). If that reasoning didn't make one bit of sense, then take a number.

Alexander continues that some of these "rights" (again, the quotes are hers) make sense in order to make sure that the United States doesn't imprison the wrong people, but that there is a "line where these specified additional 'rights' for suspected terrorists begin to infringe upon the rights of innocent Americans. " At this point you may be wondering what additional "rights" Alexander keeps citing and how they specifically infringe upon the rights of Americans. It is a puzzling question because Alexander does not lay out a clear example of these new rights to which she refers, but she does give some hints at what she views as a problem.

She blames "liberal activist judges" since the 1960's for creating new "rights" for criminals that make it very difficult to interrogate terrorists and get information out of them or "detain them for very long." She complains that we have to "coddle them", "read them their right to remain silent" and "supply them with a U.S. taxpayer-funded attorney to represent them". She goes on:

Without the ability to obtain any information from them, it becomes difficult to justify detaining them without violating their (new) “rights.” So even though we all know the Guantanamo detainees have been aiding and abetting terrorists whose sole goal in life is to kill U.S. citizens, we pretend that the U.S. Constitution includes all these additional “rights” for terrorists and their aiders and abettors, ultimately enabling them to continue their attacks upon U.S. citizens.

Again, without any specifics as to what she means by "new rights", Alexander makes the very false and very misleading argument that the prisoners at Guantanamo have been aiding and abetting terrorists and that since "liberal activist judges" afford ambiguous new "rights" to terrorists, they are able to continue their attacks upon U.S. citizens. This flies in the face of the fact that a majority of the detainees at Guantanamo have never been charged with a crime nor have then been subjected to any sort of open or speedy trial at which any evidence can be presented. Assuming that those held at Guantanamo were all aiding and abetting terrorists is simply false and claiming that releasing detainees enables them "to continue their attacks upon U.S. citizens" is blatantly false. In fact, this study that was done by a Professor at Seton Hall found that a very few number of released detainees fought against Americans.

In addition to Alexander's opinion that "liberal activist judges" are giving terrorists new "rights" at Guantanamo, she also points out that civil liberties activists are also trying to take away the governments ability to wiretap and spy on terrorists within the United States:

Another criticism of left wing civil liberties activists is that the surveillance is authorized to search communications within the U.S., not just overseas. Again, this doesn’t take into account reality, which is that many terrorists are now operating within the U.S. as sleeper cells, and others have friendly enablers in the U.S. helping them coordinate their attacks. All of the 9-11 hijackers were in the U.S.

I wonder if Ms. Alexander has heard of the term "probable cause" which is something that allows law enforcement to obtain a warrant if they would like to monitor potential illegal activity within the United States. I also wonder if Ms. Alexander remembers the protections that were once issued by the FISA legislation of 1978 which made it a crime to spy on American citizens without a warrant. Amazingly enough, Alexander proposes a "better approach" rather than try and "proactively restrict" the power of the government. Alexander proposes:

...give the laws on terrorism as drafted by Congress a chance, and then if an abuse does occur, where the government spies on someone with no connections
to terrorism, revisit the law and determine what changes should be made to
prevent those abuses.

The ignorance of this statement is astounding. The FISA legislation of 1978 was enacted by Congress and was violated by the Bush Administration after September 11th when the New York Times uncovered that the Government had been secretly spying on U.S. citizens. In order to remedy this situation, the Bush Administration pushed for (and received) a revision of the FISA legislation that would not only expand their eavesdropping powers, but effectively grant retroactive immunity to telecom giants that participated in the program. In other words, we gave the laws drafted by Congress a chance, abuses that Alexander specifically describes occurred, the law was revisited, and changes were made that allowed the Administration and telecom companies to avoid accountability to the original law. This scenario already happened, yet Alexander pretends like civil liberties advocates are unfairly and proactively restricting governmental ability to "keep us safe". Not only that but she states:

As long as the U.S. is the freest democracy in the world, there is little chance that our government is going to turn against its citizens and spy on them. As long as we have free elections and are electing free market, pro-democracy leaders, these kinds of abuses are unlikely and would be an exception should they occur.

In Rachel Alexander's world, there is little chance that the government would spy on its own citizens, but in the real world, it has already happened. Alexander even calls spying on Americans "abuses", but what she thinks is an exception, was enacted into law. Instead of condemning these abuses becoming law, she justifies them on the grounds that these laws are needed so that they can be applied to "new technology"; this is something which Glenn Greenwald did an excellent job of examining and shooting down in posts like this one.

It is embarrassing that so many mistakes, misleading, and outright false statements are circulated daily in order to attempt to justify such obvious law breaking by the Bush Administration. Whether we are discussing the FISA legislation or basic adherence to rules of internationally recognized law that surround the treatment of prisoners, the theme is the same. This theme of the last eight years, is that elected officials are perceived to be above the law. They are able to act with impunity without fear of prosecution, even when it is painfully obvious that serious crimes have been committed. These lawbreakers must be quite proud when they see pieces like the one by Ms. Alexander which imply that those who do not endorse policies which result in the torture of prisoners and spying on Americans, are somehow affording "special rights" to dangerous terrorists. This type of discourse is perverted and indicative of how backward this country has slid. It seems strange that we are debating whether prisoners should be tortured or whether the government can listen in to our phone conversations, but in Ms. Alexander's post 9/11 world, adhering to the basic rules of law are translated into infringing on the government's ability to keep us safe. How Orwellian.

This article can also be found at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com

Senate Armed Services Committee: Senior Bush Officials Directly Responsible for Torture

Last week the Senate Armed Services Committee released the results of their Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody. This bi-partisan inquiry concluded that senior officials in the Bush Administration, including the President, are directly responsible for implementing policies that led to the abusive techniques that were used on detainees in U.S. custody. In addition, the inquiry also concludes that the legal council of the Department of Justice distorted the intent of anti-torture laws and that legal reviews of these policies were cut short and acted to undermine the military's review process.

This revelation, that of the Bush Administration's responsibility for policies resulting in detainee abuse, should not come as a surprise to those who have been following developments of how the United States has conducted the so-call "War on Terror" since 2001. What is new in this instance, is that the Senate Armed Services Committee, whose ranking member is Republican Senator John McCain, has concluded that senior government officials both past and present are directly responsible for such actions.

Such a damning report has received scant media coverage in the wake of the Blagojevich scandal and is likely not to register as a blip on the radar of news coverage. Glenn Greenwald, blogger and analyst for Salon.com, reflects on the issue:

"Just ponder the uproar if, in any other country, the political parties joined together and issued a report documenting that the country's President and highest aides were directly responsible for war crimes and widespread detainee abuse and death. Compare the inevitable reaction to such an event if it happened in another country to what happens in the U.S. when such an event occurs..."

Non-existent media coverage does not lessen the importance of such findings. The conclusions reached and the time-line established are well worthy of, and frankly demand, further discussion and examination. Based on the findings of the inquiry, the initial action that opened the door for the consideration and implementation of so-call "enhanced interrogation techniques" was President Bush's signing of the memorandum on February 7, 2002 which stated that the Third Geneva Convention did not apply to the conflict with Al Qaeda. From the report:

"...the decision to replace well established military doctrine, i.e., legal compliance with the Geneva Conventions, with a policy subject to interpretation, impacted the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody."

This memorandum set off a chain of events that resulted in the United States implementing the same torture techniques on detainees that they had once trained their own military members to resist. The Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA) is an agency under the Department of Defense who trained American military to resist and withstand interrogation techniques that were considered illegal. This training, called Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape or SERE training, taught service members to resist Chinese Communist techniques originally developed to elicit false confessions. During the Spring of 2002, the report finds that senior government officials began to inquire about knowledge that JPRA had and its support for interrogations. Into the Summer of 2002, JPRA provided information to DOD that allowed the agency to begin the process of reverse engineering the SERE techniques for use on detainees.

During this same time period, the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Council (OLC) was working to redefine torture. The now infamous "Bybee memos" were issued on August 1, 2002. The first memo concluded that "For an act to constitute torture as defined in [the federal torture statute], it must inflict pain that is difficult to endure. Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." The Second memo addressed the legality of interrogation techniques and while these techniques remain classified, there have been indications that waterboarding was among the list that were approved. It is during this time period where Assistant Attorney General for the OLC, John Yoo, was meeting with people like Alberto Gonzales and David Addington to discuss these matters before issuing a new legal opinion on torture.

On October 11, 2002, a request was sent from the detention facility at Guantanomo Bay (GTMO) to the Commander of the United States Southern Command requesting approval for use of more aggressive interrogation techniques. It was after this request that GTMO's Staff Judge Advocate, Lieutenant Colonel Diane Beaver, wrote an analysis that justified such interrogation techniques, but she expected a broader legal review would take place at more senior levels. General Richard Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff then began to solicit the opinion of every branch of the military on the opinion issued by Beaver. Every branch of the military objected to certain aspects of the opinion. The Marine Corps even stated that several of the techniques "arguably violate federal law, and would expose our service members to possible prosecution."

The Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Capitan Jane Dalton, instructed her staff to perform a thorough review of these techniques, but the review was cut short by General Myers and soon after, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld pressured his advisors for a final recommendation. On November 27, 2002 DOD council William Haynes recommended that Rumsfeld approve all but three of the techniques that were requested by Dalton. On December 2, 2002, Rumsfeld famously signed Haynes's recommendation and in referencing limits on stress positions Rumsfeld added the handwritten note: "I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?"

From this point on, SERE techniques were actively taught at the military base in Guantanamo Bay and quickly spread to Afghanistan and into Iraq. These authorized techniques led to the torture, injury, and death of detainees in U.S. custody. The ACLU has compiled a comprehensive list of deaths that have occurred in U.S. custody that you can view here. While Rumsfeld rescinded the order that authorized use of these so-called enhanced techniques at GTMO in January of 2003, it is evident and the Senate Armed Services report states, that these practices continued throughout Afghanistan and Iraq. After rescinding the order, Rumsfeld acted to establish a "Working Group" whose purpose it was to review the interrogation tactics. According to the Senate Armed Services Report:

"...senior military and civilian lawyers tried, without success, to have their concerns about the legality of aggressive techniques reflected in the Working Group's report. Their arguments were rejected in favor of a legal opinion from the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel's John Yoo."

Yoo's opinion concluded that criminal laws in effect would not apply to military interrogators and that they could not be prosecuted for methods that violate the law. This opinion was later rescinded by the new Assistant General for the Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldmith in late 2003 as he told the DOD that Yoo's memos could not be relied upon to determine the legality of such techniques.

The conclusions of this report are crystal clear. Starting with President Bush's declaration that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to al Qaeda, senior members of the Administration supported policies that directly led to the abuse (and in some cases death) of detainees in U.S. custody. Though the report does not use the term "war crimes" this is precisely what is being described. Not only did these officials support these policies, but it is apparent that they sought to find legal opinions that matched their wish for implementing such policies and disregarded concerns from numerous branches of the military about the legality of these policies.

As this new Administration takes office it is imperative for President Obama to denounce these actions and end the assault that the Bush Administration has waged upon the rule of law. Doing this requires accountability for past actions and for past crimes committed. We often hear the argument that we should not look to the past and further divide the country by taking action against past Administration officials, but in this situation, it is absolutely necessary for action to be taken. After all, not only did the Administration actively work to reinvent the definition of torture so that they could abuse detainees, but as Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post points out, they constantly lied about it:

"Bush himself repeatedly and sanctimoniously blamed Abu Ghraib on a small number of low-level perpetrators, even while trying to get credit for what he insisted was a transparent system that held those who were responsible accountable.

Bush, on May 24, 2004, described what happened at Abu Ghraib as "disgraceful conduct by a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values."

On June 1, 2004, he told a reporter: "Obviously, it was a shameful moment when we saw on our TV screens that soldiers took it upon themselves to humiliate Iraqi prisoners -- because it doesn't reflect the nature of the American people, or the nature of the men and women in our uniform. And what the world will see is that we will handle this matter in a very transparent way, that there will be rule of law -- which is an important part of any democracy. And there will be transparency, which is a second important part of a democracy. And people who have done wrong will be held to account for the world to see. "

If action is not taken to punish members of the Bush Administration for these actions, what will deter future political figures from breaking the most serious laws in this country if they are shown that there is no accountability for these actions? How can it be justified that the lower level military personnel have been punished for carring out these policies at places like Abu Ghraib, yet those who supported and provided shoddy legal justification that led to the implementation of these same policies, go unpunished? It is for these reasons that President Obama should launch an independent and thorough investigation into this issue and let the chips fall where they may when it comes to prosecuting these officials. This new Administration should not balk at any political heat they would take for such action as these violations are too serious to simply chalk up to leaving the past in the past.

"The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the united States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees. Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of oru enemies, and compromised our moral authority."

- Senate Armed Services Committee Report, 2008

This article is also available at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com

Torture: A Look at Some of the Evidence that has Mounted against the Bush Administration

We have reached a point in time where everything seems so surreal. We continue to see evidence piled on top of evidence of the criminal actions that the Bush Administration has engaged in and continues to engage in. From the illegal invasion of Iraq, to extraordinary rendition, to Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, torture, illegal wiretaps, the political firings of attorneys, using propaganda on citizens, paying journalists to tout polices friendly to the administration, and on and on and on. It all blurs together into one giant lump of surreal madness and makes it hard to keep up and at times pay attention.

It is imperative for the public to keep focus and stay vigilant through all of this madness and start talking about prosecution of some of the highest ranking members of the Bush Administration. The Boston Globe broke a story this week of a report issued by Physicians for Human Rights. In this report, Physicians for Human Rights have found medical evidence of the torture of 11 detainees between the years of 2001 and 2004. This torture includes injuries that are consistent with psychological abuse, sensory deprivation, and physical and sexual abuse. In addition to these findings, it was also found that American health professionals were also present in some instances and denied health care to these prisoners. All of these men have been released and (like many detainees who have been in U.S. custody) were never charged with a crime.

Of the men interviewed and examined, one showed evidence of being stabbed in the cheek with a screwdriver, one showed rectal tearing consistent with being sodomized by a broomstick, and one showed irregularities in the contours of his tongue which is consistent with receiving electric shocks. The article in the globe states:

"Still, Physicians for Human Rights concluded that all of the interrogation techniques the 11 men allegedly endured - including officially sanctioned exposure to extreme temperatures and placement in “stress positions,” as well as unauthorized treatment such as sexual abuse - violated both domestic criminal law and international human rights treaties."

George Bush has repeatedly stated that the United States does not torture and that all interrogation techniques are "within the law":





This investigation flies in the face of what the President and his Administration claims. In fact, it led Army Major General Antonio Taguba, who oversaw this investigation, to state the following:

"After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

Earlier this week the Senate Armed Service Committee released documents on the origins of these so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques". These documents state that during a meeting at Guantanamo on Oct. 2, 2002 the counterterrorism lawyer for the CIA, Jonathan Fredman, said that torture "is basically subject to perception" and "if the detainee dies, you're doing it wrong." This Oct. 2, 2002 meeting was held after President Bush signed an order on Feb. 7, 2002, authorizing these "enhanced interrogation techniques". The order was based upon a legal memo from the White House council's office.

The Washington Times reports today that the former Chief of Staff for Colin Powell, Col. Lawerence B. Wilkerson, has testified that Vice President Cheney probably knew that torture was being used on prisoners.

Couple this "revelation" with the meetings that took place in the White House, that were chaired by (then) National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in the Spring of 2002. These meetings were attended by the following "Principals":

"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"

In these meetings, as reported by ABC News, high ranking members of the Bush Administration discussed specifics on what types of techniques would be used on detainees. This included combining different techniques that are usually used individually and included the use of stress positions, slapping, hitting, kicking, the use of sensory deprivation and waterboarding. John Ashcroft showed some signs of being disturbed during these meetings. He stated:

"Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."

Such concern did not deter Rice from proceeding with the implementation of such techniques when she stated to the CIA:

"This is your baby. Go do it."

While at first glance it may seem the President Bush was shielded from these meetings, but in fact he was involved at the highest level. Bush admitted in an interview with ABC-TV, that he knew that these meetings took place and signed off on the torture techniques. This was documented not only in the interview that Bush gave, but in an article that Helen Thomas published that can be found here. Not only has Bush denied that the United States engages in torture, but he justifies his actions by saying that they are "within the law" and legal. This is directly contrary to findings that he and his Administration have committed war crimes.

These points also shoot down the very argument that the actions at Abu Ghraib were that of a "few soldiers" or a few "bad apples". It is quite clear that these actions were discussed and implemented from the highest levels of government. Just this week however, President Bush reiterated the lie that these policies were the result of a few soldiers:




It is clear, from every piece of information that has been presented, that President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other officials at the highest levels of government should be arrested and put on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The evidence is staggering and there must be a chance for all of this to be presented in a court of law.

It is also necessary for the President and Vice President to be impeached for these crimes. Dennis Kucinich has introduced articles of impeachment against the President and these must be addressed. There also needs to be an independent investigation into the tactics that have been authorized that break the law and violate human rights.

These violations of laws and ethics must be addressed and the perpetrators of these crimes must be brought to justice.