More on Cheney's Torture Confession

I wanted to follow-up on this post in which I discussed former Vice President Cheney admitting that he was a "big supporter" of waterboarding.

There were a couple of reactions to Cheney's appearance on ABC this past Sunday that were right on the money and advance this discussion surrounding his behavior. I wanted to start with Glenn Greenwald who feels that Cheney knows exactly what he is doing...he is taunting the current administration:

In general, people who commit felonies avoid publicly confessing to having done so, and they especially avoid mocking the authorities who fail to act. One thing Dick Cheney is not is stupid, and yet he's doing exactly that. Indeed, he's gradually escalated his boasting about having done so throughout the year. Why? Because he knows there will never be any repercussions, that he will never be prosecuted no matter how blatantly he admits to these serious crimes.

[...]

Does anyone doubt that Cheney's assessment is right? And isn't that, rather obviously, a monumental indictment of most everything?

I think that this is sadly quite accurate. Cheney is not a stupid man and it is quite clear that he feels that he can speak freely about his support for what Attorney General Holder has explicitly stated, is torture. The Obama Administration has held true to their pledge to "look forward" and not to the past on the issue of torture, even when it is clear that crimes and have been committed and even when now, a former Vice President admits to supporting torture on national television.

Scott Horton lays out the section of the Federal Criminal Code that Cheney admitted to violating:

Section 2340A of the federal criminal code makes it an offense to torture or to conspire to torture. Violators are subject to jail terms or to death in appropriate cases, as where death results from the application of torture techniques. Prosecutors have argued that a criminal investigation into torture undertaken with the direction of the Bush White House would raise complex legal issues, and proof would be difficult. But what about cases in which an instigator openly and notoriously brags about his role in torture?

[...]

What prosecutor can look away when a perpetrator mocks the law itself and revels in his role in violating it? Such cases cry out for prosecution. Dick Cheney wants to be prosecuted. And prosecutors should give him what he wants.

It should be pointed out that not only did Cheney admit to supporting torture, but right at the end of the interview was this exchange (emphasis mine):

KARL: And, finally, I know that you have a reunion coming up later this month with President Bush. This'll be the first time you've seen him since leaving office, face to face?

CHENEY: Pretty much, yes. We talk on the telephone periodically, but the first time I've seen him since January 20th.

KARL: What does he think of you being so outspoken in contrast to him?

CHENEY: Well, I don't think he's opposed to it, by any means. I'd be inclined to let him speak for himself about it. The reason I've been outspoken is because there were some things being said, especially after we left office, about prosecuting CIA personnel that had carried out our counterterrorism policy or disbarring lawyers in the Justice Department who had -- had helped us put those policies together, and I was deeply offended by that, and I thought it was important that some senior person in the administration stand up and defend those people who'd done what we asked them to do.

And that's why I got started on it. I'm the vice president now -- ex-vice president. I have the great freedom and luxury of speaking out, saying what I -- what I want to say, what I believe. And I have not been discouraged from doing so.

Cheney mentions that the lawyers at the Justice Department had "helped us put those policies together" and that he felt it was his role to "defend those people who'd done what we asked them to do." In other words, the Bush Administration wanted to torture detainees and so they asked lawyers like John Yoo and Jay Bybee to craft memos that would allow them to do so. Yoo and Bybee obliged. This is conspiracy to torture and as Scott Horton mentions, a serious crime.

There has been no excuse to investigate for some time now and with the former Vice President's recent comments, there is no justification that the current Justice Department could use to defend not prosecuting those who broke such serious laws.

Reaction to Obama Releasing the Torture Memos

Reaction to yesterday's release of the toture memos is pouring in. Here is a sampling of the commentary:

Spencer Ackerman:

Something is very clear from these memos. The Bush administration often liked to say that they needed these memos to remain confidential in order to preserve the principle that the administration should receive the most candid legal advice available. What that secrecy fomented was a culture in which the precise conditions under which a man who had been shot in the leg could be placed inside a cramped box -- how many hours? -- and subjected to insects crawling on him without it being blatantly illegal. It wasn't just Abu Zubaydah's senses and personality that these memos warped.

Andrew Sullivan:

Human beings were contorted into classic stress positions used by the Gestapo; they had towels tied around their necks in order to smash their bodies against walls; they were denied of all sleep for up to eleven days and nights at a time; they were stuck in tiny suffocating boxes; they were waterboarded just as the victims of the Khmer Rouge were waterboarded. And through all this, Bush and Cheney had lawyers prepared to write elaborate memos saying that all of this was legal, constitutional, moral and not severe pain and suffering.

Bybee is not representing justice in this memo. He is representing the president. And the president is seeking to commit war crimes. And he succeeded. This much we now know beyond any reasonable doubt. It is a very dark day for this country, but less dark than every day since Cheney decided to turn the US into a torturing country until now.

digby:

The phrase "banality of evil" is very overused, I realized. But this is a case where it applies. Bybee writes as just another corporate-style lawyer finding a legal rationale for his client to do what he wants to do. Happens every day, no big deal. Except that he's writing memos justifying using techniques that have been known to be torture since at least the Spanish Inquisition.

Oh sure, he says it needs to be "medically supervised" and performed by only those who are "qualified" which makes it all bureaucratically neat and tidy. And he consistently asserts the twisted logic that because American military people had come through the SERE training without suffering any lasting harm, that prisoners would also suffer no lasting harm, which not only makes no sense, but gives him a quasi-legal and moral justification for perpetrating despicable acts. Everything is very sterile and very controlled. And that's what makes this opinion so chilling.

Chris Floyd:

And cannot every criminal on the face of the earth now claim the Obama defense: "Surely, your honor, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. So let's forget the fact that I (raped/murdered/robbed/tortured), and move forward, shall we?" For the Obama defense is nothing other than the Nuremberg defense: "I was only following orders. I was given assurance by the highest authority that my actions were legal in all respects." Is this what we have come to? Is that what now constitutes bold, progressive action? Is this, really, part of our "core values," an essential embedded component of our "national greatness?"

The more one considers Obama's remarks, the more offensive they become, and the more flagrantly they insult the intelligence. For the very memos that he has released give the lie to his own statement. Obama says it would be wrong to prosecute CIA underlings for carrying out actions that they were told were legal. Leaving aside the fact that apparently none of these great, courageous, self-sacrificing, vigilant defenders of our "core values" (as Obama lauds them) considered these tortures to be inherently immoral, but simply wanted to cover their ass legally before they wall-slammed the hell out of somebody or poured water down their throats until they began to choke and drown -- the fact is, they were told quite specifically by Bush's White House shysters that there was no guarantee that their actions would be considered legal by a court.

Glenn Greenwald:

I agree entirely that it is the DOJ lawyers who purported to legalize torture and the high-level Bush officials ordering it who are the prime culprits and criminals, as compared to, say, CIA agents who were proverbially just following orders and were told by the DOJ that what they were doing was legal. But leave aside the question of whether prosecutions would produce good or bad outcomes. After all, the notion that the law can and should be ignored whenever we think doing so would produce good results or would constitute good policy was the engine that drove Bush lawlessness. If, as Barack Obama proclaimed yesterday, "the United States is a nation of laws" and his "Administration will always act in accordance with those laws," isn't it the obligation of those opposing prosecution to justify that position in light of these legal mandates and long-standing principles of Western justice? How can they be reconciled?

The Secret ICRC Report on Torture: More Evidence of Criminal Activity

In February of 2007, The International Committee of the Red Cross concluded a secret report into the treatment of Al Qaeda detainees by the Bush Administration. Journalism professor and author Mark Danner, recently received a copy of this report and has posted excerpts and summaries of the findings. Conclusions that were reached in this report indicate that the detainees were subjected to treatment that "constituted torture" and violated international law.

I have written many entries on the subject of torture and many details in this report that pertain to techniques used on detainees is not new information. What is significant, as Danner has noted in an interview with the Washington Post, is that the Red Cross has labeled these practices as both torture and a violation of international laws:

Danner said the organization's use of the word "torture" has important legal implications. "It could not be more important that the ICRC explicitly uses the words 'torture' and 'cruel and degrading,' " Danner said in a telephone interview. "The ICRC is the guardian of the Geneva Conventions, and when it uses those words, they have the force of law."

The ICRC conducted various interviews with a number of detainees who have been held by the United States and all of them recounted very similar accounts (down to specific details) of situations that they have experienced. From Danner's account of the report:

In virtually all such cases, the allegations made are echoed by other, named detainees; indeed, since the detainees were kept “in continuous solitary confinement and incommunicado detention” throughout their time in “the black
sites,” and were kept strictly separated as well when they reached Guantánamo,
the striking similarity in their stories, even down to small details, would seem to make fabrication extremely unlikely, if not impossible. “The ICRC wishes to underscore,” as the writers tell us in the introduction, “that the consistency of the detailed allegations provided separately by each of the fourteen adds particular weight to the information provided below.”

What kind of treatment did these detainees recount? Take a look at the Introduction to this report:

Contents

Introduction

1. Main Elements of the CIA Detention Program

1.1 Arrest and Transfer

1.2 Continuous Solitary Confinement and Incommunicado Detention

1.3 Other Methods of Ill-treatment

1.3.1 Suffocation by water

1.3.2 Prolonged Stress Standing

1.3.3 Beatings by use of a collar
1.3.4 Beating and kicking

1.3.5 Confinement in a box

1.3.6 Prolonged nudity

1.3.7 Sleep deprivation and use of loud music

1.3.8 Exposure to cold temperature/cold water

1.3.9 Prolonged use of handcuffs and shackles

1.3.10 Threats

1.3.11 Forced shaving

1.3.12 Deprivation/restricted provision of solid food

1.4 Further elements of the detention regime….

This is what this country has become and the type of acceptable treatment that the Bush Administration approved. Can it become any clearer?

After Danner's lengthy analysis of the report he lists definitive conclusions that we are able to draw in the wake of the ICRC report. They include, and I paraphrase:

- Beginning in the Spring of 2002, the Bush Administration began to torture captives with the approval of the Bush Administration and other high ranking government officials in violation of the Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture, and U.S. law.

- President Bush and other high ranking government officials repeatedly lied about these policies to international organizations and to the American public in speeches, press conferences, and interviews.

- The U.S. Congress was aware of and had information pertaining to torture policies that were being implemented by the Administration, yet passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to protect those responsible for such policies from the War Crimes Act.

- Democrats who had an opportunity to filibuster the bill, did not do so due to the mid-term elections. Democrats were worried that they would be labeled as soft of terror and on terrorists.

- The political damage done to the reputation of the United States and to its constitutional ideals and liberties has been vast and enduring.

These are high crimes and though I seem to stress this in the majority of my posts on this topic, the need for criminal investigations cannot be stressed enough. The information of this investigation by the ICRC comes during a moment when former Vice President Dick Cheney continues to go on network television in defense of these policies and claim that any variation of said policies is making this country more susceptible to attack.

Why is there such a disconnect with how we discuss these issues in the media and the verifiable facts of these policies? Perhaps an answer to this is how we continue to battle more over semantics than actually investigating those who worked to implement these policies. Take the Washington Post article that discusses this very ICRC report...their headline puts the word "torture" in quotation marks. It is, at this point, a bit absurd to continue to pretend that there is some ambiguity to the question of whether the techniques used were torture. Andrew Sullivan helps break it down to the basics and Mark Danner says:

DANNER: I think the definitional question is extremely important, and as I mentioned a moment ago, I think it’s extremely important to get by it already.
We’re debilitated in that by some degree by the practices of the American press,
frankly, which is that as long as the president or people in power continue to cling to a definition that they assert is the truth — as President Bush did when it came to torture, he said repeatedly the United States does not torture — the press feels obliged to report that and consider the matter as a question of debate.

The evidence that continues to pile up in regard to these matters requires that we get beyond this media mental block of debatable semantics that not only work to misleadingly frame a debate that we shouldn't be engaged in, but gives the whole conversation a creepy Orwellian tone. We should not get caught up in debating whether we should use "torture" or "enhanced interrogation techniques", or another vague term. We should be focused on the reality of the actual policies that were implemented on detainees and how they broke serious laws and resulted in deterioration of who we are as a country.

Cheney Defends Torture, Claims Country is Guided by "The Hand of Providence"

Last week, a group of conservative journalists sat down with Vice-President Cheney for a two hour discussion on the last eight years in the White House and about his service in various Presidential Administrations. Among these journalists, was Erick Erickson of the website HumanEvents.com and his latest piece discusses some of the topics about which the outgoing Vice President spoke.

Naturally, the so-called "War on Terror" was a topic that came up during this time and Erickson mentions that Cheney feels that the Administration did not get credit for a lot of things that didn't happen; or to translate, Cheney is again making the claim that since the United States has not been attacked since 9/11, it is evidence that the Bush Administration's policies have worked. It is obvious that Cheney feels that torture is among the "policies" that have provided results in keeping America safe because Erickson then quotes Cheney as saying:

We’ve ended up in a situation where critics label everything the administration does as “torture.” “That word,” he sighed, “is used with reckless abandon."

The fact that Cheney is still arguing semantics in regard to using the term "torture" as opposed to the more Orwellian "enhanced interrogation techniques" is more indication that Administration officials feel that these policies were actually beneficial and feel that they did nothing wrong. Regardless of the term used, it is more important is to focus on what has been implemented as acceptable ways of treating detainees, how those policies have broken laws, and how it affects the United States and its ability to keep the country safe in the future.


We know, from the Senate Armed Services Committee report released a few weeks ago, that what Cheney and Bush Administration officials felt would be acceptable, has led to the abuse and deaths of detainees that were in U.S. custody. A report issued last year by Physicians for Human Rights found abuses such as detainees being stabbed in the cheek with a screwdriver and another detainee had injuries consistent with being sodomized. Combine this with the comprehensive records that the ACLU has kept of detainee deaths that are consistent with homicide and one continues to wonder if using the term "torture" really is being used with such "reckless abandon". If this is deemed an appropriate way to treat detainees, the majority of which have never been charged with a crime, then perhaps America needs to step down from pedestal of morality upon which these same leaders claim we are perched.

Erickson's piece continues:

Many of the administration’s opponents have never let go of the belief that terrorists could be prosecuted. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the best example: the dividing line between the Bush administrations admirers and its most vehement critics falls along not just party lines, but separates those whose views are legalistic and academic and those who view war pragmatically.

What is striking about this statement is not just Erickson's amazement that there are those who "have never let go of the belief that terrorists could be prosecuted" as if prosecuting criminals is some hair-brained idea, but his distinction between those who view the war in legalistic terms versus pragmatic terms. To think that war should be viewed through one lens or another is to fall trap to same black and white mindset that this Administration has grown so fond of during the last eight years. Breaking the law the way this Administration has done and disrespecting the very idea of the law in the name of pragmatism is still breaking the law. Upholding the law is not some ideology with which those who have supposed "pragmatic vision" can simply disagree with.

What drives Cheney and other members of the Bush Administration to believe that they are above the law? Perhaps the answer lies in Cheney's response to a question by conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer during the two-hour long interview. Krauthammer asked Cheney if he felt that the "hand of providence" played a part in American history. Erickson documents:

The Vice President replied that he thought the United States had a very special place and was unique in history. “Clearly genius was involved in establishing the Republic. . . . We’ve either been extraordinarily fortunate from time to time or one can see the hand of providence.”

With the belief that your god is on their side and is guiding the path of the country that they lead, then it becomes easier to justify breaking laws in the name of advancing the cause of a country that has a "special place" and is guided by the "hand of providence". Such a perversion of adherence to the rule of law, justified by a belief in divine guidance is a reinforcement of why there needs to be an independent investigation of crimes committed over the last eight years.

Rep. Nadler (D-NY) Calls for an Investigation of Bush Administration Officials

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) has written a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey urging him to appoint an independent council to investigate actions taken by Vice President Dick Cheney, Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and other senior level administration officials in regard to the torture of prisoners in U.S. custody. Rep. Nadler cites Vice President Cheney's recent interview with ABC News and Cheney's frank admission to directly approving the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad as evidence of the Administration's participation in approving tactics that are against the law. Rep. Nadler states in his letter:

The Vice President’s public admission that he was “aware of the program,
certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared” is deeply
disturbing. It implicates the Vice President in this activity which appears to
have been a direct violation of our criminal laws against the use of
torture. Similarly, a recent report issued by the Senate Armed Services Committee
found that “Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s authorization of aggressive
interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay was a direct cause of
detainee abuse there.”[7] Additional evidence shows that other top officials
also were involved in authorizing similar activities.

Not only did Cheney admit to his role in approving such policies as stated above, but, as Nadler points out, the Senate Armed Services Committee recently issued a report that found Administration officials directly responsible for the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody. I recently wrote about this bi-partisan report and will reemphasize that this report is damning evidence that the Administration not only approved policies of torture, but lied about it when the abuses at Abu Ghraib were exposed.

In addition to Nadler's letter, he appeared this morning on Democracy Now! and emphasized some very basic points that I, and others, have been making:

And the morality of this aside, you cannot have high officials deliberately
break the law without accountability. The Vice President, on that interview we
saw a few minutes ago, talked about the oath of office that the President, the
Vice President, others take, and that is to preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States. You are not preserving it, and you are not
defending it; you are, in fact, perverting it, if you deliberately break the
law, which is the supreme law of the land pursuant to the Constitution. It is
imperative, if the United States is to remain a country of laws and not men,
that people who break the laws be held accountable.

This is very important and very fundamental to the operation of the United States. This country is a country of laws and not men, or in other words, no one should be above the law. When it continues to become increasingly clear that elected officials at the highest levels of government have committed serious crimes, there should be no reason why an independent panel shouldn't look into said crimes. As I have also written about in recent days, a distinction must also be made between political accountability and accountability to the law. Nadler touches on this point in his interview:

...there are things that it is imperative that the Obama administration,
when it takes office, and the Congress, in January, take steps to hold officials
accountable for violations of law, and really, not because we want vengeance and
not because we want to be vindictive of what happened, but because holding
people to the law and making them go through a legal process of proving guilt or
innocence is the only way that you can minimize the likelihood of recurrence of
law breaking and maintain the United States as a democratic country.

Those who often raise the argument that we should "move on to unite the country" and "not hold political grudges" are wrongly applying their formula for political accountability into the realm of criminal accountability. When laws are broken, there is a need for investigations and charges to be brought that apply to the crimes committed. It does not make any sense, or deter future political leaders from lawbreaking, if we chalk up the violation of laws to "political disagreements" or "political difference". This is the same disparity that I wrote about in discussing the response of some in Politico's "Arena" forum recently. I will revisit Maurice Carroll's response to reiterate the point:

Is it a good idea for a new administration to look for prosecutable crimes
by the old administration? Even if their opinion is that there WERE crimes? By
and large, the answer is no. Even if the true believers (and the true-believer
editorial writers) are pestering the Obama administration to do it. One of the
strengths of the American political system is that it's not a blood sport. We
disagree without looking to put the other guys in jail. Which is a longish way
of saying: There'll be a new slate. Shouldn't we wipe the old slate clean?

Carroll is not alone in this viewpoint, a viewpoint that encourages us not to investigate an outgoing administration EVEN IF there is a belief that crimes WERE committed. Carroll justifies this viewpoint by stating that "we disagree without looking to put the other guys in jail" and that this is "one of the strengths of the American political system." This is an absurd statement that equates political difference with accountability to laws and sadly, it is this narrative that is often repeated the loudest during these recent discussions about investigation of Bush Administration Officials. It mischaracterizes the argument of those who are calling for accountability to the rule of law into an argument being put forth by mere political opponents.

Rep. Nadler is not the first who has called for the investigation of Bush Administration officials for lawbreaking and he is certain to not be the last. There have been some rumors that President Bush has plans to pre-pardon members of his Administration before January 20 to avoid potential prosecution, but at this point it remains to be seen if an Obama Administration would put forth such an investigation. There is certain to be more on this issue between now and Inauguration Day.

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

Accountability to the Rule of Law is not a Criminalization of Political Differences

Posted at the "Arena" section of Politico.com, is a question that relates to what I, and many, have been writing about recently. For those who are not familiar with this section of Politico's website, it is a section that is described as their "daily debate with policy makers and opinion shapers." The question posted states: "Should the DOJ consider prosecuting Bush administration officials for detainee abuse as the NYT and others have urged?"

There are some short responses by a wide-range of individuals and some of the responses continue to miss the mark on this issue. The first response is from Steven Calabresi, a Professor of Law at Northwestern University, and he acknowledges that if war crimes were committed, (and he doesn't believe that any were) then we should prosecute those responsible. He then goes on to qualify his response by taking a shot at both the New York Times and those who hold a different political ideology than the Bush Administration:

"The effort by the New York Times and others to criminalize politics by
casually urging the criminal prosecution of Bush Administration officials the
Times disagreed with is however reprehensible. It is a step back toward the era
when we guillotined our political opponents instead of voting them out of
office."

This is much more than, as Calabresi suggests, a criminalization of politics. As has been discussed in my previous entries, we are talking about decisions that have directly led to the torture, and in some cases, the deaths of detainees in U.S. custody. This is about an Administration who has violated the Geneva Conventions, shut out legal opinion that did not coincide with the tactics they wanted to implement, and lied after the story broke about these torture programs. We are not talking about the criminalization of politics, we are talking about a fundamental disregard and disrespect for the rule of law.

There are more responses to this question from Steve Steckler of the Infrastructure Management Group and from Maurice Carroll, Director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. Steckler states:

"Such prosecutions, warranted or not (and on balance, I don't believe they are),
would distract and diminish the new Administration in a manner similar to what
would have occurred had the same Bushhaters been successful in getting the
Democratic Congress to begin impeachment proceedings."

Again, labeling those who are concerned with crimes committed by the current Administration as "Bushhaters" frames this issue within a political context that implies that those who are calling for an investigation into crimes committed, are merely political opponents of the President. It matters not if those calling for an investigation or prosecution of the officials who have committed crimes are political opponents, what matters is that there are serious laws that have been broken. My favorite response to this question however, comes from Maurice Carroll. Here is his response in full:

"Is it a good idea for a new administration to look for prosecutable
crimes by the old administration? Even if their opinion is that there WERE
crimes? By and large, the answer is no. Even if the true believers (and the
true-believer editorial writers) are pestering the Obama administration to do
it. One of the strengths of the American political system is that it's not a
blood sport. We disagree without looking to put the other guys in jail. Which is
a longish way of saying: There'll be a new slate. Shouldn't we wipe the old
slate clean?"

This argument has been echoed lately in discussions surrounding the Bush Administration and has been voiced by many. The problem with this is line of thought is that it provides for zero accountability even if very real crimes have been committed. Carroll states that it isn't a good idea for a new administration to look into prosecutable crimes, EVEN IF they believe that real crimes were committed. Instead, Carroll favors "wiping the old slate clean" by excusing any crimes and moving on with a "new slate".

Political accountability is one thing. If elected officials do not represent their constitutes and fail to bring the people what was promised then voting these officials out of office is a type of political accountability, but we are not simply talking about political accountability in this instance. We are talking about actual crimes that have taken place and holding criminals accountable by the legal standards that every day citizens are held to. We should not confuse accountability to the rule of law, with political accountability.

It makes little sense to operate as a nation of laws and on the notion that no one is above the law, if the country's response to law breaking by elected officials is to ignore it to preserve so-called "political unity". Mr. Carroll states that this is one of the great strengths of the American political system yet in fact, it is one of the biggest weaknesses of the American political system. This is a system where we see soldiers, who implemented policies of torture punished by a justice system that ignores those who put the policy in place. This is not justice, nor is it simply a difference in political belief systems. What this system is, is a group of elite politicians who feel they are above the law and can act without being held to account for even the most serious crimes that we have seen in recent times. Should the DOJ consider prosecuting Bush Administration officials for detainee abuse? Most certainly. It is necessary in order to hold lawbreakers to account for their crimes and recommit this country to the basic principles of the rule of law.

Cheney Admits Role in Approving Torture: It's Time for a Recommitment to the Rule of Law

In follow-up to my blog entry yesterday, In an interview with ABC News Dick Cheney has admitted to authorizing torture techniques and continues to justify their use.



Cheney also went on to advocate keeping Guantanamo Bay open indefinitely and continues to justify the invasion of Iraq despite the fact that the Administration was dead wrong about Saddam Hussein having stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction. In fact, Cheney even brushed aside the notion that the accuracy of their pre-war claims even matter anymore. This is the first time that Vice President Cheney has admitted such an active role in approving these so-call "enhanced interrogation techniques" and his stark admission comes just days after the Senate Armed Services Committee released their report finding that senior officials within the Bush Administration are directly responsible for the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody. What is described in the report (thought not explicitly cited as such) are war crimes and what Cheney admits to in his interview with ABC, are war crimes. The only question left at this juncture is what (if any) actions an Obama Administration will take to restore the respect for the rule of law.

Cheney's arrogance and stark admissions are done because he knows that the likelihood of being held to account is very small within the current Washington climate. This is the same arrogance that has led the Bush Administration to expand the powers of the Executive Branch of the government to unprecedented levels. As rumors continue to float around the country that once President-elect Obama takes office he will close Guantanamo, it is necessary for Obama to simultaneously announce a recommitment to the rule of law. This recommitment needs to emphasize that no one, not the President and not any elected or appointed official, is above the law. In accordance with this recommitment, Obama should take the necessary steps to convene either an independent panel or a special prosecutor to investigate lawbreaking that has occurred over the last eight years. It is necessary to stop the expansion of power within the Executive Branch and it is necessary to restore this country's commitment to the basic principles of law that this country should adhere to.

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.