Torture and Lies: Confronting Cheney

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....

Iran Special: Taking Apart the Regime's Defenses (Shahryar v. Afrasiabi)

The Latest from Iran (1 September): The Ripples of Debate Continue

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

Earlier this month, The Huffington Post featured a lengthy opinion piece from Professor Kaveh Afrasiabi, insisting on the legitimacy of the Presidential election and, beyond that, of the Ahmadinejad Government. While The Huffington Post is a high-profile outlet, I declined to reply to Afrasiabi. I had seen his polemical attack on Professor Ali Ansari in a Press TV discussion just after the election, and his arguments on the election had been put forth two months earlier by Flynt and Hillary Leverett and Seyed Mohammad Marandi.

Josh Shahryar (the creator of The Green Brief, one of the outstanding sources in this crisis) did respond, however, with a through dissection of Afrasiabi's assertions. We recommend this not to take sides in a fight but to illustrate how it is possible to marshal information, carefully and thoughtfully, for an analysis and an opinion with political impact. And, even as we are engaged in debate with "mainstream" journalists over the value of new media and Internet sources, we note that Shahryar's reading of events --- based on a network of contacts developed via the Web and Twitter as well as his thorough consideration of emerging news --- is far beyond that of much of the "established" broadcast and print media:

As a journalist who has been covering the Iranian Election, almost every day for the past two months from my puny little computer, I was shocked and dismayed when I read Kaveh L. Afrasiabi’s article on the Iranian Election Crisis. Published in The Huffington Post on August 20, 2009 and titled “Obama Should Congratulate Ahmadinejad,” the article urges President Obama to accept the outcome of the election and congratulate Ahmadinejad on his victory.

It must be pointed out, that throughout his article, Mr. Afrasiabi misrepresents the truth, omits key details, and at times simply presents inaccurate or false information to support his point of view. Fortunately, we live in a time of ‘information overload’ where the truth is easy to find, and we all know that there are always two sides to any given story.

Unlike Mr. Afrasiabi - who fails to mention on his Huffington Post profile that he has been a staunch supporter of Ahmadinejad for years - I concede that I have been drawn to the plight of millions of Iranians. I am an insignificant ‘International Green’ who supports Iranians in their struggle to obtain their rights. After reading Mr. Afrasiabi’s article, I had no other choice than to write a response – and I do so as an admirer and supporter of the Sea of Green – not as a representative.

Extracts of Mr. Afrasiabi’s article are included - without any touch-ups or rephrasing below in italics. My comments, rebuttals, and what I believe to be the “whole story” follow the extracts.

AFRASIABI: There are several good reasons why president Barack Obama should join his White House guest this week, Egypt's president Hosni Mubarak, as well as the UN's Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, and dozens of other world leaders who have extended congratulations to Iran's duly re-elected president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Not to do so reflects a poor judgment on the White House's part, particularly since Obama has yet to fulfill his own post-election promise of responding to Ahmadinejad's letter that congratulated him for his victory.

Contrary to what was stated, neither UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, nor President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt has congratulated Ahmadinejad. Mr. Ban Ki-Moon did send a letter to Ahmadinejad after the elections. His spokesperson, Marie Okabe, later clarified that the letter should not be construed, in any way, as congratulating Ahmadinejad. According to Ms. Okabe, “The letter takes advantage of the occasion of the inauguration to express the hope that Iran and the United Nations will continue to cooperate closely in addressing regional and global issues." She went on to add, "It is not accurate to refer to this as a congratulatory letter."

In regards to Mr. Mubarak, the Presidency of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s website did report, three weeks ago, that Mr. Mubarak had sent a note to Ahmadinejad congratulating him on his re-election. However, the Egyptian Foreign Ministry has since denied the report. Egyptian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hossam Zaki’s response to the media about the story was, “I cannot confirm the authenticity of the report.” Furthermore, Arab League Secretary General, Amr Moussa’s act of congratulating Ahmadinejad cannot, in all honesty, be considered as an endorsement by Arab League Members – including Egypt.

Iranian media and government-run websites have claimed that the Japanese Premier, Taro Aso, has also congratulated Ahmadinejad. However, it comes as no surprise, that this report cannot be confirmed either.

Notwithstanding the above, there indeed have been some world leaders who have congratulated Ahmadinejad. A closer examination, however, reveals that out of the two dozen or so congratulatory notes, the majority were sent either by countries without a democracy or by heads of countries that do not wish to upset Iran’s Supreme Leader – given their geographic proximity and strong regional interests.

It is ludicrous to think that the leaders of China, North Korea, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, UAE, Syria, Qatar and Tajikistan would be, in any way, concerned about the fairness of an election. Let us not forget that the above-mentioned countries are dictatorships, strong-arm monarchies or have national leaders whose own elections were considered controversial.

The countries of Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Armenia and Iraq fall into the second category of “not wanting to upset Iran’s Supreme Leader.” Turkey - because of the Kurdish issue; Lebanon - to appease Hezbollah; Armenia - because Iran is one of the few neighbors with which it has friendly relations - and Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq - because their interests strongly demand good relations with Iran, regardless of the leadership.

This leaves out Brazil, India, Russia, Venezuela, Indonesia, Yemen and Hamas-held Gaza. As for countries such as Japan, Nations in the EU bloc, Australia, New Zealand and Canada – all countries that rank at the top when it comes to democracy – none have congratulated Ahmadinejad. Thus, Obama’s refusal to send a congratulatory note actually shows sound judgment on his part, as he heads a Nation that is a world-leader in democracy.

AFRASIABI: First, with the dust of the post-election turmoil settling and the absence of any hard evidence of "rigged elections" becoming more and more transparent, time is actually on the side of Ahmadinejad, who has been much vilified in the western press, and maligned at home by his reformist challengers, as the grinch who "stole" the election.

Unfortunately, the sum of evidence presented by Mr. Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi to corroborate their allegations of widespread fraud in the June 12th elections simply doesn't add up. This author has examined in depth both the official complaints of losing candidates, as well as the various reports issued by their "truth committee", and has found them to be dreadfully lacking in substance, contradictory, and thick on irrelevant innuendo, such as passing off such pre-election "irregularities" seen in television debates as evidence of election fraud.

The description of, “‘the dust of post-election turmoil settling” baffles the mind. The Iranian people have been protesting at every opportunity - in spite of an extremely high security presence. They have been shot at, beaten, tear gassed, imprisoned, tortured, and in many cases brutally killed. How has the dust settled?

In late June, thousands gathered at Ghoba Mosque and around Tehran. Thousands more turned out, facing the brutality of the security forces on July 30th. Hundreds were chanting in support of Karroubi, in front of Etemaade Melli’s office less than two weeks ago, although he explicitly asked them not to. Nightly, people chant “Alloha Akbar” from their rooftops, despite the threat of being shot at, fined, arrested or imprisoned. When the opposition calls for a protest, the people of Iran protest, not only in Tehran. We must keep in mind the thousands that gathered around the country, whose voices cannot be heard because of the government’s media blackout. The claim that, “The protests are over,” can only be made, IF and WHEN:

* Protests are no longer illegal; meaning that people can protest without the fear of reprisal
* Opposition Leaders call for a protest
* No one shows up

The truth of the matter is, if there are no “grand protests,” it is not because people don’t want to protest, but because the opposition has not called for one.

Regarding the claim, “The elections were not rigged,” the mere fact that "defeated" candidates and reformist politicians – and their followers - were not the only ones to have cast doubt on the results should merit speculation. Many others have challenged the validity of the results, including former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, who expressed his doubt during his sermon at Friday Prayer’s, as well as Khatami, who released a statement calling for a “referendum” over the issue.

For the sake of argument, let us set aside for a moment, that the previous Supreme Leader Rohullah Khomeini and the current Supreme Leader Seyed Ali Khamanei are dictators in the guise of religious sanctity. Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mohammad Khatami and Hashemi Rafsanjani are all two-term heads of the Iranian Government. Even if we discount Mousavi as a stakeholder in the election, dismiss Khatami as a reformist, what about arch-conservative Rafsanjani? Then again, these people are politicians and you never know what Rafsanjani might be hoping to gain from this.

Then what about a class of Iranian leaders who have little to nothing to gain by questioning the legitimacy of the government? Where do the clerics stand? In case anyone missed their comments here is what they have to say:

Read rest of article....

UPDATED Iran: Law & Politics - Misinterpreting Mortazavi

The Latest from Iran (31 August): The Debate over the Cabinet

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

UPDATED 1 September: Shirin Ebadi, Nobel Prize Laureate and human rights lawyer, offers an interpretation in support of the Mostaghim-Daragahi analysis: "The setting aside of Mortazavi from his position of Tehran's chief prosecutor and his installment as [one of the] deputy general prosecutors of Iran must not to be considered as a promotion....The latitude and power of Mortazavi in his new position is much less and this new position has made him more vulnerable to prosecutions."

An EA correspondent adds, "I suspect that Larijani's Mortazavi promotion/demotion was a stroke of diabolical cunning. First of all, a powerful official, accustomed to act independently (and, more importantly, from a political faction that is rather hostile towards the head of the judiciary, Sadegh Larijani) is removed from a sensitive post, placed under supervision, and therefore prevented from causing trouble for the Larijanis. Secondly, since this removal is "a promotion", Mortazavi and his cronies, however upset by the loss of power, cannot make a noise. Thirdly, placing Mortazavi in a higher position that at the same time is vulnerable to prosecution allows the Larijani-headed judiciary to control him. When Mortazavi was Tehran's prosecutor he could use his influence to block and stonewall all charges made against him, but in his new position this power has been taken away from him.

Yesterday, in a graphic illustration of the twists and turns of Iranian politics, Saeed Mortazavi went from being "fired" in the morning as Tehran's Chief Prosecutor to being "promoted" in the afternoon as Iran's Deputy Prosecutor General. The sudden shift led to some misleading headlines --- the New York Post is still crowing about the sacking of the "Butcher of Tehran" --- and a lot of uncertainty. What did Mortazavi's fortunes say about the intra-Establishment battle for power as well as the future of detentions and trials of post-election political prisoners?

A couple of Enduring America correspondents cautiously navigated the possibilities yesterday before concluding "wait and see". Others, however, have not been as cautious and, I fear, as shrewd.

Ramin Mostaghim and Borzou Daragahi of the Los Angeles Times are about as good as you get in reporting on Iran for US media (Mostaghim is based in Tehran, persisting despite the Iran Government's restrictions, and Daragahi is in Beirut), but they may have mis-stepped by jumping to the conclusion that Mortazavi now has "a fancy title" that "strips him of his power to pursue his hardline political agenda".

This is a favoured theory of some Iranian activists who are pushing the idea of a political overthrow of the President by the Larijani brothers, one of whom is the new head of judiciary, and Hashemi Rafsanjani. In this case, the LA Times reporters rely on two Iranian trial lawyers who claim that Mortazavi's" authority and power have been diminished almost to zero, nothing ... because he cannot make any judiciary decision".

That's a comforting thought for those who hope that Mortazavi,  with his hard-line approach to detention and trials (and alleged abuses of prisoners), will no longer have influence. It ignores, however, the reality that his new role is as much a political matter as a judicial one.

The truth is that we simply don't know what impact Mortazavi will have until his relationship with his superior, Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejeie, and judiciary head Sadegh Larijani emerges.