Here We Have It, The Reason, Why George Bush Ordered Torture

April 22, 2009 at 11:19 am | Posted in American politics | 15 Comments

At last, we have a motive. A real and true motive for why torture was used.

“There were two reasons why these interrogations were so persistent, and why extreme methods were used,” the former senior intelligence official said on condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity.

“The main one is that everyone was worried about some kind of follow-up attack (after 9/11). But for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there.”

It was during this period that CIA interrogators waterboarded two alleged top al Qaida detainees repeatedly — Abu Zubaydah at least 83 times in August 2002 and Khalid Sheik Muhammed 183 times in March 2003 — according to a newly released Justice Department document.

“There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, especially the few high-value ones we had, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s people to push harder,” he continued.

“Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s people were told repeatedly, by CIA . . . and by others, that there wasn’t any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam, and that no such ties were likely because the two were fundamentally enemies, not allies.”

Senior administration officials, however, “blew that off and kept insisting that we’d overlooked something, that the interrogators weren’t pushing hard enough, that there had to be something more we could do to get that information,” he said.

A former U.S. Army psychiatrist, Maj. Charles Burney, told Army investigators in 2006 that interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility were under “pressure” to produce evidence of ties between al Qaida and Iraq.

“While we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al Qaida and Iraq and we were not successful in establishing a link between al Qaida and Iraq,” Burney told staff of the Army Inspector General. “The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link . . . there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results.”

There’s your reason folks. This is why George Bush ordered torture. Because Bush and Cheney really believed (or wanted to believe) that there was a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. The cold hard facts proved otherwise, that Al-Qaeda and Saddam truly were enemies. But Bush and Cheney thought the CIA missed something so they pressed harder. They needed that link. Because they wanted to go to war with Iraq. So they tortured Al-Qaeda prisoners to get false evidence of links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

There’s enough evidence out there now that Bush and Cheney deserve to be tried for war crimes. They got us into Iraq on false premises. They tortured prisoners to get false confessions of a link between our real enemy and our perceived enemy. American soldiers died. Hundreds of billions of dollars were spent (well, really, put on credit cards for our children to pay). How much more do you need, America, in order to see that these two men are war criminals and deserve the full punishment of the law!

Advertisements

15 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. […] there was, and you think that’s an advert for torture? I’d have to agree with Daniel, Bush and Cheney should be tried as war criminals, along with Tony Blair and all other ‘leaders’ who participated in this world-wide […]

  2. Of course, I’m sure you wouldn’t oppose the prosecution of Bill Clinton, who signed and then ordered the first renditions, right?

    Then of course there is the matter of Al Gore. According to Clinton administration official Richard Clarke:

    ‘extraordinary renditions’, were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgment of the host government…. The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: “Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, ‘That’s a no-brainer. Of course it’s a violation of international law, that’s why it’s a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'”

    There are plenty of other examples of Clinton era rendition/torture programs. I’ll be happy to point those out if you need further info.

    Add Clinton and Gore and a host of other Dems who knowingly signed off on the redition torture train.

    I mean, you can’t start the game in 5th inning, right?

  3. Sounds good to me. But they didn’t use torture to try to get false connections between our real enemy and our perceived enemy. That would be Bush and Cheney. But hey, torture is un-American. Any who approve it should be held accountable.

  4. Actually, they did use torture and in fact, also knowingly sent prisoners (hundreds!) to nations/agencies where they knew torture would be used.

    Recall too, that all this was in a pre 9/11 environment and the Dem Congress overight committees approved of all this.

    Reports this AM is that Mr Obama has once more ‘reconsidered’ the whole matter of going after prior administration officials.

  5. Did you read my comment? I’m not doubting that Clinton didn’t order extraordinary rendition. But he didn’t use that to try to get false confessions about links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq so as to convince the country to go into a war they didn’t need to. That reprehensible, war crime act was done by George W. Bush.

    Oh and by the way, I love how conservatives think it is okay for Bush to do something just because Clinton did it. Way to bring ethics back into the White House!

  6. No one uses torture to get false confessions.

    Under both Clinton and Bush, intel was gathered and acted upon.

    Finally, No one ever made a claim that a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, as you are implying.

    The connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda was established by the Pentagon.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/saddam_and_alqaeda_1.html

    In addition, Bill Clinton made clear the threat that was Saddam. In fact, we went to war because Bill Clinton told the truth about Saddam and WMD’s

    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

  7. SCA,

    No one uses torture to get false confessions.

    Actually that’s what it is used for. The techniques used on detainees held by the CIA come from SERE. SERE comes from torture the Chinese did on American soldiers during the Korean War to get false confessions out of the American soldiers! Furthermore, the Soviets used sleep deprivation in particular to get political prisoners to sign false confessions. Furthermore, waterboarding was used in the Spanish Inquisition to get people to falsely confess!

    THAT’S ALWAYS BEEN THE POINT OF TORTURE! Anyone who tells you otherwise is stupid and does not know what they are talking about.

    Finally, No one ever made a claim that a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, as you are implying.

    Um, are you stupid or something? I realize most Americans have short term attention spans, but seriously dude. Are you stupid? I mean, you yourself in the very next sentence say:

    The connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda was established by the Pentagon.

    So I ask again, are you stupid?

    In fact, we went to war because Bill Clinton told the truth about Saddam and WMD’s

    Actually no, Bill Clinton was wrong about Iraq too. Sad to say, a Democrat can be wrong too.

  8. Are you saying Bill Clinton lied?

    As for your implication that torture is used to elicit false confessions, the very premise is absurd. Even this administration’s DCI has admitted that there were positive outcomes as a result of these kind of interrogations.

    John Negronte and Dennis Blair have confirmed this, as has the DOJ and the leadership quartets of the House and Senate (Conveniently, Pelosi now recalls differently. The DNI memorandum as well as published reports by George Tennat put that silliness to rest.

    Now, referring to me as ‘stupid’ does little to bolster your arguments, inasmuch as the link I provide makes clear that Iraqi documents as well as DOD docs validate my remarks. Nowhere do I say that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

    What I did say was that documentary evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda is now beyond dispute- and the Bush administration made no such claim either.

  9. You bet Clinton lied. You think I’m some partisan. I really don’t care who is in charge. If they are wrong, I will speak out. Clinton was wrong about Iraq. Yes, he lied. They do that sort of thing, presidents of the United States.

    As for your implication that torture is used to elicit false confessions, the very premise is absurd.

    Huh? Do you even know a single thing about torture? Or is the information you get solely from television and fiction?

    Even this administration’s DCI has admitted that there were positive outcomes as a result of these kind of interrogations.

    Sadly, even this administration is not immune to say stupid things. Note that the DCI doesn’t actually give examples, but just states generally. Until they give verifiable proof, they don’t have any leg to stand on. Torture has always been used to extract false confessions. That has always been the point.

    What I did say was that documentary evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda is now beyond dispute- and the Bush administration made no such claim either.

    Where? Show me.

  10. Yes Clinton and Gore ordered torture and they too must be investigated or all invetigations must end!! Apparantly the ACLU was on CLintons back too, but where o where is the main stream media……..you know, the networks with declining ratings, declining revene and increased media bias that’s driving down the profits???

    http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/rendition701/timeline/timeline_1.html%5B/url%5D

    October 1994
    U.N. Convention Against Torture

    The United Nations Convention Against Torture goes into force in the United States. The U.N. convention, signed a decade earlier, bans the transfer of a prisoner to another country where there are “substantial grounds” that he may face torture. The U.S. Congress, in ratifying the treaty, orders that “substantial grounds” are defined as “more likely than not” that the prisoner will be tortured. The convention potentially makes renditions to other countries a crime under U.S. law.

    Under President Clinton, the CIA launches a systematic covert program of “extraordinary” rendition, the transfer of suspected Islamist terrorists to foreign countries. The Clinton administration is responding to fears of a growing transnational threat from Osama bin Laden and other well-organized Sunni extremists in Afghanistan, the Balkans and Egypt.

    Among this program’s creators is CIA veteran Michael Scheuer, chief of what becomes the Bin Laden Unit from August 1995 to June 1999. According to Scheuer, the rendition program’s goal is to take people off the streets who are planning or have been involved in attacks on the U.S. and its allies, and to seize documents in their possession when arrested. In his book Ghost Plane, Stephen Grey, who has been investigating the CIA’s secret rendition program for four years, reports that President Clinton orders that, in addition to bringing some terrorists to face trial in the U.S., others should be sent to foreign countries where they are wanted for a crime. To comply with the provisions of the Convention Against Torture, the CIA is ordered to get assurances from destination countries that suspects will not be tortured. “At the minimum,” Grey says, “countries with the very worst human rights records (say, Syria) were off-limits at first.” Another key difference, he adds, “Renditions before the Bush administration were carried out primarily to disrupt terrorist activity, not to gather intelligence or to interrogate individuals.”

    [B][SIZE=”4″]September 22, 1995
    The first Extraordinary Rendition

    In Ghost Plane, Stephen Grey writes that extraordinary rendition by the CIA began as a systematic tactic on September 22, 1995, with the capture of Egyptian Abu Talal al-Qasimi, in Croatia, and his transfer to Egypt where he was executed. The term “extraordinary rendition” is never an official CIA term, but it comes to define the CIA’s program of snatching terrorist suspects abroad and transferring them without legal process to a third country for detention and frequent interrogation. [/SIZE][/B]

    The passage of the War Crimes Act allows U.S. federal courts to prosecute grave war crimes like “willful killing”, “torture”, “inhuman treatment”, “unlawful deportation or transfer,” and other breaches of the Geneva Conventions. This new law applies whether these acts are committed “inside or outside the United States.”

    [B]August 1996
    The War Crimes Act of 1996
    The implications of the Act are profound. After war begins in Afghanistan in late 2001, the then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales begins a secret debate among administration lawyers about how to order the most effective interrogation of hundreds of prisoners captured around the world while avoiding prosecutions of the U.S. soldiers and officials involved for breach of the War Crimes Act. [/B]
    [/QUOTE]

    The Supreme Court supported torture in the 1800s, we call that Precendent IMO!!!!!!!
    [QUOTE][url]http://supreme.justia.com/us/119/436/[/url]
    Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 (1886)
    Ker v. Illinois

    Argued April 27, 1886

    Decided December 6, 1886

    119 U.S. 436

    Syllabus

    A plea to an indictment in a state court that the defendant has been brought from a foreign country to this country by proceedings which are a violation of a treaty between that country and the United states, and which are forbidden by that treaty, raises a question, if the right asserted by the plea is denied, on which this Court can review, by writ of error, the judgment of the state court.

    But where the prisoner has been kidnapped in the foreign country and brought by force against his will within the jurisdiction of the state

    Page 119 U. S. 437

    whose law he has violated, with no reference to an extradition treaty, though one existed, and no proceeding or attempt to proceed under the treaty, this Court can give no relief, for these facts do not establish any right under the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.

    The treaties of extradition to which the United States are parties do not guarantee a fugitive from the justice of one of the countries an asylum in the other. They do not give such person any greater or more sacred right of asylum than he had before. They only make provision that for certain crimes, he shall be deprived of that asylum and surrendered to justice, and they prescribe the mode in which this shall be done.

    The trespass of a kidnapper, unauthorized by either of the governments and not professing to act under authority of either, is not a case provided for in the treaty, and the remedy is by a proceeding against him by the government whose law he violates or by the party injured.

    How far such forcible transfer of the defendant so as to bring him within the jurisdiction of the state where the offense was committed may be set up against the right to try him is the province of the state court to decide, and presents no question in which this Court can review its decision.

    The plaintiff in error, being convicted of embezzlement in a state court of Illinois, sued out this writ of error. The federal question which makes the case is stated in the opinion of the Court.

  11. The Supreme Court supported torture in the 1800s, we call that Precendent IMO!!!!!!!

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/119/436/
    Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 (1886)
    Ker v. Illinois

    Argued April 27, 1886

    Decided December 6, 1886

    119 U.S. 436

    Syllabus

    A plea to an indictment in a state court that the defendant has been brought from a foreign country to this country by proceedings which are a violation of a treaty between that country and the United states, and which are forbidden by that treaty, raises a question, if the right asserted by the plea is denied, on which this Court can review, by writ of error, the judgment of the state court.

    But where the prisoner has been kidnapped in the foreign country and brought by force against his will within the jurisdiction of the state

    Page 119 U. S. 437

    whose law he has violated, with no reference to an extradition treaty, though one existed, and no proceeding or attempt to proceed under the treaty, this Court can give no relief, for these facts do not establish any right under the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.

    The treaties of extradition to which the United States are parties do not guarantee a fugitive from the justice of one of the countries an asylum in the other. They do not give such person any greater or more sacred right of asylum than he had before. They only make provision that for certain crimes, he shall be deprived of that asylum and surrendered to justice, and they prescribe the mode in which this shall be done.

    The trespass of a kidnapper, unauthorized by either of the governments and not professing to act under authority of either, is not a case provided for in the treaty, and the remedy is by a proceeding against him by the government whose law he violates or by the party injured.

    How far such forcible transfer of the defendant so as to bring him within the jurisdiction of the state where the offense was committed may be set up against the right to try him is the province of the state court to decide, and presents no question in which this Court can review its decision.

    The plaintiff in error, being convicted of embezzlement in a state court of Illinois, sued out this writ of error. The federal question which makes the case is stated in the opinion of the Court.

  12. Of course, I’m sure you wouldn’t oppose the prosecution of Bill Clinton, who signed and then ordered the [B]first renditions[/B], right?

    Then of course there is the matter of Al Gore. According to Clinton administration official Richard Clarke:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition

    There are plenty of other examples of Clinton era rendition/torture programs. 36 known tortures!!!

    http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/rendition701/timeline/timeline_1.html

    October 1994
    U.N. Convention Against Torture

    The United Nations Convention Against Torture goes into force in the United States. The U.N. convention, signed a decade earlier, bans the transfer of a prisoner to another country where there are “substantial grounds” that he may face torture. The U.S. Congress, in ratifying the treaty, orders that “substantial grounds” are defined as “more likely than not” that the prisoner will be tortured. The convention potentially makes renditions to other countries a crime under U.S. law.

    Under President Clinton, the CIA launches a systematic covert program of “extraordinary” rendition, the transfer of suspected Islamist terrorists to foreign countries. The Clinton administration is responding to fears of a growing transnational threat from Osama bin Laden and other well-organized Sunni extremists in Afghanistan, the Balkans and Egypt.

    Among this program’s creators is CIA veteran Michael Scheuer, chief of what becomes the Bin Laden Unit from August 1995 to June 1999. According to Scheuer, the rendition program’s goal is to take people off the streets who are planning or have been involved in attacks on the U.S. and its allies, and to seize documents in their possession when arrested. In his book Ghost Plane, Stephen Grey, who has been investigating the CIA’s secret rendition program for four years, reports that President Clinton orders that, in addition to bringing some terrorists to face trial in the U.S., others should be sent to foreign countries where they are wanted for a crime. To comply with the provisions of the Convention Against Torture, the CIA is ordered to get assurances from destination countries that suspects will not be tortured. “At the minimum,” Grey says, “countries with the very worst human rights records (say, Syria) were off-limits at first.” Another key difference, he adds, “Renditions before the Bush administration were carried out primarily to disrupt terrorist activity, not to gather intelligence or to interrogate individuals.”

    September 22, 1995
    The first Extraordinary Rendition

    In Ghost Plane, Stephen Grey writes that extraordinary rendition by the CIA began as a systematic tactic on September 22, 1995, with the capture of Egyptian Abu Talal al-Qasimi, in Croatia, and his transfer to Egypt where he was executed. The term “extraordinary rendition” is never an official CIA term, but it comes to define the CIA’s program of snatching terrorist suspects abroad and transferring them without legal process to a third country for detention and frequent interrogation.

    The passage of the War Crimes Act allows U.S. federal courts to prosecute grave war crimes like “willful killing”, “torture”, “inhuman treatment”, “unlawful deportation or transfer,” and other breaches of the Geneva Conventions. This new law applies whether these acts are committed “inside or outside the United States.”

    August 1996
    The War Crimes Act of 1996
    The implications of the Act are profound. After war begins in Afghanistan in late 2001, the then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales begins a secret debate among administration lawyers about how to order the most effective interrogation of hundreds of prisoners captured around the world while avoiding prosecutions of the U.S. soldiers and officials involved for breach of the War Crimes Act.

  13. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/alex_sp…_under_clinton
    Liberals might be in for a nasty shock with Leon Panetta, the man Barack Obama wants to lead the CIA.

    The selection of the former White House chief of staff to Bill Clinton has been welcomed by many Democrats for his denunciations of torture and all round management abilities.

    But according to one former agent, Michael Scheuer, the extraordinary rendition programme that has so tainted the agency during the Bush administration actually began in the Clinton administration, when Panetta would, or should, have been fully aware of it.

    Scheuer is a curious beast. An opponent of the Iraq War, he was the head of the CIA’s get-bin-Laden unit from 1996 to 1999, and he should know what he is talking about. But he is very pro-rendition and was critical of the choice of Panetta on US networks today, mostly because he is an outsider. His claim that Clinton/Panetta started/knew about the outsourcing of torture was repeated by William Kristol and others.

    Criticism of Panetta’s selection has centred on his lack of spook experience, though that didn’t help George Tenet deliver accurate intelligence on Saddam Hussein.

    At what promises to be a lively confirmation hearing, senators might be well served to ask Panetta what he knew about agreements to send terror suspects to the likes of Egypt and Syria, where they were likely to be tortured.

  14. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0…_n_158216.html
    President-elect Barack Obama’s choice for CIA director, Leon Panetta, served as White House chief of staff during the time the Clinton administration accelerated a practice of kidnapping terrorist suspects and sending them to countries with records of torturing prisoners, human rights organizations and former U.S. officials say.

    Republicans on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will question Mr. Panetta, chief of staff for President Clinton from 1994 to 1997, about what, if any, role he played in shaping the policy known as “extraordinary rendition,” a Republican aide on the committee said. Mr. Panetta’s confirmation hearing is scheduled for Jan. 27. The aide asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue.

  15. heh, as long as Clinton does it, it’s okay for Bush to do it. Lovely logic Seedy.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: