Tuesday
Sep012009
Torture and Lies: Confronting Cheney
Tuesday, September 1, 2009 at 7:40
Torture and Lies: Confronting Cheney — 7 More Points to Note
Defending Torture, Bombing Iran (Video): Dick Cheney on Fox News Sunday (30 August)
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
It has been thoroughly depressing to watch the spiralling descent of public discussion of the Bush Administration's policies and operations that put torture into practice from 2002. My fear is that the mounting evidence (much of which we had known years ago, before the advent of the Obama Administration opened up a space for revelation) of a systematic use of "enhanced interrogation" is being swept away by a hyper-active campaign of distortions, excuses, and pretexts.
The debate is now being framed as to whether the US Government going to cripple the dedicated personnel of the Central Intelligence Agency. That is a deliberate screen to hide a bigger goal: to keep Bush Administration officials from facing a reckoning, in public opinion if not criminal court, for their actions.
Thank goodness, therefore, for Dan Froomkin, who has fought diligently for years to keep the story of torture before readers. Pushed out the door by The Washington Post in part because of this effort, he is now writing for The Huffington Postin:
Cheney Still Manipulating People -- Now In Public
When he was vice president, Dick Cheney got his way by secretly wielding the instruments of power. Now that he's no longer in government, Cheney is still pulling levers and pushing buttons - he's just doing it in plain view. And it's the media that he's manipulating.
After years of speaking in whispers, operating by proxy, and leaving as few fingerprints as possible, Cheney has figured out that he can say pretty much anything he wants, the networks will show it on TV, and the newspapers will dutifully print it. And best of all, they will fail to put it in any context whatsoever.
The first bit of context for any Cheney comment, of course, is that he is a monstrous liar. News articles about Cheney should routinely reminded readers of some of the things he said in the run-up to war in Iraq. Like, for instance: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." By any reasonable standard, this man's credibility was shot a long time ago.
Cheney's latest coup is to get the media to obediently recount what Rachel L. Swarns of The New York Times so naively and euphemistically called his "forceful defense of the full range of interrogation techniques used by intelligence officers."
In an interview with beyond-obsequious Fox News anchor Chris Wallace that aired on Sunday, Cheney once again alleged that what he calls "enhanced interrogation tactics" saved "thousands of lives and let us defeat all further attacks against the United States."
It wouldn't have been hard for reporters to put that particular claim in its proper context. Just last week, the CIA released two documents that Cheney had been huffing and puffing (and bluffing) about for months, insisting that they would once and for all definitively prove that torture had, as he put it, "prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people."
But just as us critics expected, when those reports were released, they included no such proof -- just a lot of cover-your-ass language from the CIA, vaguely describing intelligence findings gained from the overall interrogation of "high value detainees" generally speaking. There was no evidence that a single American life was saved, or of any valuable intelligence that couldn't have been gathered using traditional methods.
In fact, after all these years, and despite a slew of selective leaks while Cheney was still in power, there remains not one iota of proof that torture accomplished much of anything -- not that it would be OK if it had.
Read rest of article....
Defending Torture, Bombing Iran (Video): Dick Cheney on Fox News Sunday (30 August)
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
It has been thoroughly depressing to watch the spiralling descent of public discussion of the Bush Administration's policies and operations that put torture into practice from 2002. My fear is that the mounting evidence (much of which we had known years ago, before the advent of the Obama Administration opened up a space for revelation) of a systematic use of "enhanced interrogation" is being swept away by a hyper-active campaign of distortions, excuses, and pretexts.The debate is now being framed as to whether the US Government going to cripple the dedicated personnel of the Central Intelligence Agency. That is a deliberate screen to hide a bigger goal: to keep Bush Administration officials from facing a reckoning, in public opinion if not criminal court, for their actions.
Thank goodness, therefore, for Dan Froomkin, who has fought diligently for years to keep the story of torture before readers. Pushed out the door by The Washington Post in part because of this effort, he is now writing for The Huffington Postin:
Cheney Still Manipulating People -- Now In Public
When he was vice president, Dick Cheney got his way by secretly wielding the instruments of power. Now that he's no longer in government, Cheney is still pulling levers and pushing buttons - he's just doing it in plain view. And it's the media that he's manipulating.
After years of speaking in whispers, operating by proxy, and leaving as few fingerprints as possible, Cheney has figured out that he can say pretty much anything he wants, the networks will show it on TV, and the newspapers will dutifully print it. And best of all, they will fail to put it in any context whatsoever.
The first bit of context for any Cheney comment, of course, is that he is a monstrous liar. News articles about Cheney should routinely reminded readers of some of the things he said in the run-up to war in Iraq. Like, for instance: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." By any reasonable standard, this man's credibility was shot a long time ago.
Cheney's latest coup is to get the media to obediently recount what Rachel L. Swarns of The New York Times so naively and euphemistically called his "forceful defense of the full range of interrogation techniques used by intelligence officers."
In an interview with beyond-obsequious Fox News anchor Chris Wallace that aired on Sunday, Cheney once again alleged that what he calls "enhanced interrogation tactics" saved "thousands of lives and let us defeat all further attacks against the United States."
It wouldn't have been hard for reporters to put that particular claim in its proper context. Just last week, the CIA released two documents that Cheney had been huffing and puffing (and bluffing) about for months, insisting that they would once and for all definitively prove that torture had, as he put it, "prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people."
But just as us critics expected, when those reports were released, they included no such proof -- just a lot of cover-your-ass language from the CIA, vaguely describing intelligence findings gained from the overall interrogation of "high value detainees" generally speaking. There was no evidence that a single American life was saved, or of any valuable intelligence that couldn't have been gathered using traditional methods.
In fact, after all these years, and despite a slew of selective leaks while Cheney was still in power, there remains not one iota of proof that torture accomplished much of anything -- not that it would be OK if it had.
Read rest of article....
Reader Comments (2)
These tactics never fail to hijack efforts to debate and address important issues. The operatives of the political right are masterful at redirecting media attention. For example, in the last round of the torture debate, they diverted the focus from the question of torture. Accusations were made that Nancy Pelosi heard CIA reports on torture without denouncing them and that investigating torture will lead to more terrorist attacks. By stoking the media, the right handily transformed the issue into what Nancy Pelosi knew and whether torture works-- whether it "saved" us from terror attacks.
The true issues, the fact that torture is illegal and that it happened, are buried by creating confusion with peripheral accusations, and by injecting the fear of future terrorist attacks. These tactics are ridiculously effective. The confusion leads the public to distrust of both sides. Watch the arguments of the political right over time. Its operatives show so little confidence in the validity of their positions that they invariably resort to ad hominem efforts to discredit and undermine their opponents.
You will notice that since the last round, it's been shown that the CIA has, in fact, misled Congress, which weakens the attack on Pelosi, though it may make an occasional appearance. Cheney is picking up with the fear tactic... torture saved us and an investigation of torture weakens the intelligence agencies, opening the door to terrorist attacks. His cadré quotes a report that says a certain program was effective, failing to point out that many forms of interrogation were used in that program and it gives no indication that torture worked. The underlying effectiveness of his argument is demonstrated in what I just said. I am talking about whether torture works. The issue is that torture is illegal and inhumane. People tortured. A crime occurred and we are talking about not investigating the crime.
Well put by AMY
The fact remains that the terrorist attacks happened on the watch of Cheney. The fact also remains that tortured people say and do whatever you want. All this arguments aside, the true question facing America is the following:
If I could do something disgusting, inhumane and against the law, human values and normality, should I and would I? In clearer terms does the end justify the means? In fighting the terrorists, am I allowed to terrorise people, torture them and do the fabric of American society harm?
Americans have rejected the Cheney thesis repeatedly. They have time after time said via the ballot box or opinion poles that they disagree with this flawed logic. Mr. Cheney should as such respect the very democracy and its decision that he so cherish ley wishes to protect.
Failure will lead the history books labeling him with such harsh criticism that time will not be able to fix.