Senate Armed Service Committee Report: Bush and Co. Authorised Torture

The Senate Armed Service Committee has just released a 263-page report, based on a review of more than 200,000 pages of documents and more than 70 interviews, on the Bush Administration's detention and interrogation policies. The report was completed in May 2007 but held back until now because of political sensitivities.

This is the clear conclusion: "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 our enemies, and compromised our moral authority."

The full report is available via The New York Times website.

Roxana Saberi Update: Positive Signs Despite a Hopeless TV Interview

ABC Television Good Morning America's summary of an interview with President Ahmadinejad

In general, there has been little news from Iran on the status of Roxana Saberi, the Iranian-American journalist sentenced last week to 8 years in prison on espionage charges. Amidst the lull in developments, some Western media are highlighting the plea by Saberi's fiancé, Iranian filmmaker Bahman Ghobadi, for her release.

The relative silence may not be bad, given signs of behind-the-scenes manoeuvres for a reduction in Saberi's sentence and possibly her release from prison. On Tuesday, Iranian spokesman Ali Reza Jamshidi reinforced weekend signals from President Ahmadinejad's office that leniency would be welcomed, "We can't influence the judge's verdict (but hope) the verdict will be reconsidered at the appeals court."

There is room for manoeuvre. Under Iran's Islamic Criminal Code, the judge has the discretion to suspend all or part of the sentence or convert it to a fine. Sentences in cases which go to appeal in Iran are almost always reduced, and other factors in favour of a reduction include Saberi's lack of a previous criminal record and the significant fact that she has not appeared on television to "confess" her crimes.

There may even be a discreet intervention by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It was his confidante, Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi, who decreed as head of the Iranian judiciary, "the necessity of access to fair consideration of Roxana Saberi's case, especially at the appeals stage, which is the certain right of the accused".

Hopefully, these positive signals will not be undermined by this morning's showboating idiocy by the American ABC Television. Their morning programme, "Good Morning America", turned a 30-minute interview with President Ahmadinejad into a self-promoting rescue of Saberi. After asking superficial questions about the US-Iranian, and more specifically the Ahmadinejad-Obama relationship (so superficial that Ahmadinejad's reply isn't shown but summarised), reporter George Stephanopoulos turned to Saberi's case.

However, instead of engaging Ahmadinejad's diversionary response, "I do not judge in judicial cases," which turned into a challenge to US concern, "to encourage friendship, [President Obama] should allow our laws to be processed fairly" --- you know, by asking why Saberi did not have a public trial and why there still has been no disclosure of evidence against her --- Stephanopoulos struck a white-knight pose, "May I go see her for myself to assure that she is safe?"

The ABC report ends with Stephanopoulos telling the studio, "We're going over to [the Judiciary Department] right now," to get permission to enter Evin prison. Let's hope that others, less publicly and much more relevantly, are moving towards a real resolution.

The Daily Show and Karl Rove: "Oh, No, Our Torture Techniques Have Been Ruined"

This one goes out to Karl Rove, as he bravely fights his Twitter campaign to vindicate the Bush Administration:

Jon Stewart:"Apparently everyone's not upset about the fact that we torture. They're upset about the fact that we know about it."

Karl Rove: "All of these techniques are now ruined."

Peggy Noonan (former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan): "Sometimes in life you want to just keep walking....Some of life has to be mysterious."

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
We Don't Torture
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

Video and Analysis of Obama Torture Statement: Let's Blame the Lawyers?

The politics of torture rumbles on. Facing criticism over the release of the four memoranda documenting the Bush Administration's authorisation of "enhanced interrogation" (from Bush defenders: releasing the memos jeopardises national security and/or torture worked; from Bush critics: OK, so who is going to be prosecuted for this?), President Obama manoeuvred through a short statement yesterday in response to a reporter's question (the exchange begins at 4:26 --- transcript below):

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBIcjXrfEKQ[/youtube]

Obama began with the rhetoric that "there are still enemies out there" being fought by "courageous people" who have to make "difficult decisions" but the memoranda showed we were "losing our moral bearings". Then his deliberate answer got interesting:

For those who carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House, I do not think it's appropriate that they be prosecuted. With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that is going to be more a decision for the attorney general within the parameter of various laws, and I don't want to prejudge that.

The President immediately returned to the theme of let's move on: "As a general deal, I think we should be looking forward and not backward. "I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively, and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations." Still he had opened up the question:

Are the Bush Administration's lawyers going to take the criminal fall for the torture authorised by their President and his senior advisors?

Reviewing the video, I think Obama, with his dedication to reassuring intelligence and security personnel that he "has their back" and his decision not to challenge the Bushmen who ordered torture, inadvertently held open the door of prosecution for a few lawyers. He may well close that door quickly.

Let's state the bluntly obvious, however. These lawyers --- John Yoo, Jay Bybee, William Haynes, Stephen Bradbury --- were merely carrying out a job handed to them by policymakers, notably the officials in Vice President Dick Cheney's office. The task was not "Are these proposed interrogations legal?" but "Give us a finding which says these interrogations are legal." No doubt some of the lawyers eagerly took on the job --- John Yoo, in particular, saw the sanctioning of torture as part of a legitimate exercise in Executive power --- but, without the direction from above, their memoranda and guidances do not get written.

Presidents and their right-hand men --- unless they are overthrown in coups or toppled by wars --- don't wind up in jail. Their lawyers, however, are expendable.

If you don't think so, ask a man named Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Remember? Out of all the Bush Administration folks who leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame to tarnish her and thus defend their "legitimate" intelligence on Saddam Hussein's Iraq, he's the only one who wound up in jail.

TRANSCRIPT

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) to ask you about the interrogation memos (OFF-MIKE) you were clear about not wanting to prosecute those who -- who carried out the instructions under this legal guidance.

OBAMA: Right.

QUESTION: Can you be that clear about those who devised the policy? And then, quickly, on the second matter, how do you feel about investigations, whether a special -- special commission or something of that nature (OFF-MIKE) to go back and really look at the issue?

OBAMA: Well, the -- look, as I said before, this -- this has been a difficult chapter in our history and one of the tougher decisions that I’ve had to make as president.

On the one hand, we have very real enemies out there, and we rely on some very courageous people not just in our military, but also in the Central Intelligence Agency to help protect the American people, and they have to make some very difficult decisions, because, as I mentioned yesterday, they are confronted with an enemy that doesn’t have scruples, that isn’t constrained by constitutions, aren’t constrained by legal niceties.

Having said that, the -- the OLC memos that were released reflected, in my view, us losing our moral bearings. That’s why I’ve discontinued those enhanced interrogation programs.

For those who carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House, I do not think it’s appropriate for them to be prosecuted.

With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the perimeters of various laws, and -- and I don’t want to prejudge that. I think that there are a host of very complicated issues involved there. As a general view, I think that we should be looking forward and not backwards. I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations.

And so if and when there needs to be a further accounting of what took place during this period, I think for Congress to examine ways that it can be done in a bipartisan fashion, outside of the typical hearing process that can sometimes break down and break it entirely along party lines, to the extent that there are independent participants who are above reproach and have credibility, that would probably be a more sensible approach to take.

I’m not suggesting that, you know, that should be done, but I’m saying, if you’ve got a choice, I think it’s very important for the American people to feel as if this is not being dealt with to provide one side or another political advantage, but rather is being done in order to learn some lessons so that we move forward in an effective way.

And the last point I just want to emphasize, as I said yesterday at -- at the CIA when I visited, you know, what makes America special, in my view, is not just our wealth, and the dynamism of our economy, and our extraordinary history and diversity. It’s -- it’s that we are willing to uphold our ideals even when they’re hard.

And sometimes we make mistakes, because that’s the nature of human enterprise. But when we do make mistakes, then we are willing to go back and correct those mistakes and -- and keep our eye on those -- those ideals and -- and values that have been passed on generation to generation.

And -- and that is -- is what has to continue to guide us as we move forward. And -- and I’m confident that we will be able to move forward, protect the American people effectively, live up to our values and ideals.

And that’s not a matter of being naive about how dangerous this world is. As I said yesterday to some of the CIA officials that I met with, I wake up every day thinking about how to keep the American people safe, and I go to bed every night worrying about keeping the American people safe.

I’ve got a lot of other things on my plate. I’ve got a big banking crisis, and I’ve got unemployment numbers that are very high, and we’ve got an auto industry that needs work.

There are a whole things -- range of things that during the day occupy me, but the thing that I consider my most profound obligation is keeping the American people safe.

So I -- I do not take these things lightly, and I’m not in any way under -- under illusion about how difficult the task is for those people who are on the front lines every day protecting the American people. So I wanted to communicate a message yesterday to all those who overwhelmingly do so in a lawful, dedicated fashion that I have their back.

All right? Thank you, everybody.

Israel-Palestine: Obama Invites Netanyahu, Abbas, Mubarak to US

After yesterday's announcement that President Obama is inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, and Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas (pictured) to Washington in May, we now know the US plan for Israel and Palestine in full.

Let's Talk. If Only for the Sake of Talking.

The visit of the Middle East trio to the White House follows last week's set-up discussions by US envoy George Mitchell in the region. After the talks, Obama will probably announce that he will go to Israel and the West Bank in June (a plan we recently revealed on Enduring America).

It is hard to see, however, what the US is achieving so far other than going through the motions. Even before getting to the detail of an Israel-Palestinian settlement, there are two not-so-small obstacles.

The first is the position of the Israeli Government. While Netanyahu went through the diplomatic motions in talking to Mitchell last week, in contrast to the hard-line image of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, he pointedly did not accept the "two-state" formula pushed by the US. The Israeli position --- discussions should be on areas such as economic development and "security" rather than any notion of Palestinian independence --- is still being held.

US officials put out signals that Mitchell pressed Netanyahu to show some flexiblity, and no doubt those signals --- if only for public display --- will be repeated before the May talks. Even so, there  is the second obstacle: the uninvited but very visible presence of Hamas.

Of course, Obama could not countenance a White House welcome for Hamas leaders such as Khaled Meshaal or Gazan Prime Minister Ismail Haniya. What is more important is that there are still no indications of a discreet Washington contact, direct or through third parties, with the organisation. Instead, the US can probably hold to its own line that, as long as the Cairo talks fail to produce "Palestinian unity", the issue of Hamas at the table does not arise.

That means, however, that these are not talks on Israel and Palestine but, at most, on Israel and the West Bank. And it also means that the impression, if not the actual US policy, will be of a political strategy with Israel and Egypt to prop up Abbas --- whose term as President of the West Bank expired on 9 January --- as a "leader" even without significant movement towards a Palestinian state.