This article from Nick Baumann at Mother Jones is filled with political-insider information, but I think it is a significant marker of how the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility has moved from an Obama pledge in January 2009 to a site for internal Administration struggle in November.
I learned several weeks ago that the Administration’s top lawyer, Gregory Craig, was going to leave or be pushed out the door, in part because his political position was fixed to the promise to shut Gitmo. I was always sceptical, given the politics of the War on Terror, that the deadline of January 2010 was going to be met, so it was no surprise that Craig would have to walk the plank.
The broader issue is that we are now in a mish-mash of measures. There will be trials in the US for a few detainees (such as 9-11 planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammad) whom the Administration is sure will be convicted without the use of lost or discredited (i.e., obtained “via duress”) evidence. There will be military commissions for about 75 detainees whose convictions cannot be assured. And the rest of the prisoners will remain in the limbo of a Guantanamo that is open well into 2010.
Liberals have not done enough public wrestling with Massimo Calabresi and Michael Weisskopf’s Time article on the ouster of White House counsel Gregory Craig. Perhaps that’s because they don’t want to deal with the article’s troubling implications. As Kevinexplains, Craig was “the White House lawyer tasked with dismantling Bush-era interrogation and detention policies. At first, Obama was on board with Craig’s plans. Then, reality set in.” Read the rest of this entry »
Apparently a former Vice President spoke last night and said he kept the world safe and the current President doesn’t. Sort of like my Dad saying each time we meet, “You know in my day 1) there was no crime 2) kids knew their place 3) music was much better.”
First of all, Dick Cheney has all sorts of nerve purporting to speak in defense of the CIA. His administration outed a senior CIA operative, Valerie Plame, in retaliation for her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, exercising his freedom of speech (because he exercised it to criticize the Bush administration’s lie-filled, one-way propaganda train to the Iraq war).
Second, CIA interrogators themselves have said that they believed that Cheney’s torture policy put individual CIA personnel in legal jeopardy. As Greg Sargent has pointed out, on page 94 of the recently released Inspector General’s report, we learn the following:
“During the course of this Review, a number of Agency officers expressed unsolicited concern about the possibility of recrimination or legal action resulting from their participation in the CTC program….One officer expressed concern that one day, Agency officers will wind up on some “wanted list” to appear before the World Court for war crimes…”
This is not even to mention, in a broader sense, the risk to any US personnel that possibly ended up in “enemy” hands where captors of US prisoners could justify their own acts of torture by pointing to US tactics. Read the rest of this entry »
Further to this morning’s blog about former Vice President Cheney’s bold if faintly ludicrous manoeuvre on Fox News to call for the declassification of Government memoranda that prove torture worked, there are two notable pieces in The Washington Post.
First, the ridiculous. Marc Thiessen, who was a speechwriter for President Bush but has somehow transformed into a “senior” Adminstration official in recent weeks, claims, “The CIA’s Questioning Worked“. He tries to prove this through one of the four declassified memoranda from last week, the July 2005 “finding” by Government lawyer Stephen Bradbury that rationalised torture.
It doesn’t seem to worry Thiessen that the same memorandum constructing an argument for illegal interrogation might just exaggerate or even lie about the benefits of those interrogations. For example, Thiessen writes, “Interrogations of [Abu] Zubaydah — again, once enhanced techniques were employed — furnished detailed information regarding al Qaeda’s ‘organizational structure, key operatives, and modus operandi’ and identified KSM [Khalid Sheikh Mohammad] as the mastermind of the September 11 attacks.”
In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida’s tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida — chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates — was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.
Now, the sublime. Dan Froomkin once again takes apart the “torture works” argument of Cheney, Thiessen, and other former Government officials. Today’s analysis is so well-documented that it should be available as a rebuttal to anyone who tries to evade the full extent of the Bush Administration’s criminal activity: Read the rest of this entry »
Over the weekend, former Bush Administration officials continued blowing smoke that the release of Government memoranda confirming the authorisation of torture was a “threat to national security” (rather than admitting that they are trying to cover up their roles in an illegal and ineffective programme). There was also some media silliness, notably a lengthy piece by Scott Shane in The New York Times that offered the choice, “Would you rather be tortured or hit by a Hellfire missile?” (Scott, I believe the answer is, “Neither.”)
Two articles, however, got to the heart of the matter: the Bush-era torture didn’t work. Read the rest of this entry »
1:35 p.m. After a long and busy week, we’re taking the night off. We’ll be back in the morning with all the overnight developments fit to notice.
12:50 p.m. According to the German magazine Der Spiegel, France has drafted a plan for European countries to take 60 detainees from the Guantanamo Bay facility. The French Government has refused to comment on the report.
A US military spokesman claimed the incident occurred in a joint operation with Iraqi forces, but an Iraqi police general said no Iraqi troops were present.
11:15 a.m. India Snubs Barack and Hillary. Here’s one we missed. All week we were identifying Richard Holbrooke as President Obama’s special envoy for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. In fact, when the appointment was announced on Thursday, India had fallen off the title.
It wasn’t an omission. According to a US official, “When the Indian government learned Holbrooke was going to do [Pakistan]-India, they swung into action and lobbied to have India excluded from his purview. And they succeeded. Holbrooke’s account officially does not include India.”
Daniel Markey of the Council on Foreign Relations offers an explanation for Delhi’s resistance: “They [India] are the big fish [in the region]. They don’t want to be grouped with the ‘problem children’ in the region, on Kashmir, on nuclear issues.” Moreover, another US official added, “The Indians do not like Holbrooke because he has been very good on Pakistan… and has a very good feel for the place.”
News is just coming through that President Obama has ordered the suspension of all military commissions cases for 120 days at Guantanamo Bay. Currently there are 21 detainees, out of the more than 250 still held, facing prosecutions on charges related to the 9-11 attacks and the “War on Terror”.
In contrast to the glare of publicity the Bush Administration shone on its trial of 9-11 planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, cut short when he and other defendants tried to plead guilty, all the President’s men and women are keeping quiet about the latest developments at Guantanamo Bay.
This article from Nick Baumann at Mother Jones is filled with political-insider information, but I think it is a significant marker of how the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility has moved from an Obama pledge in January 2009 to a site for internal Administration struggle in November.
Comments Off 
Further to this morning’s blog about former Vice President Cheney’s bold if faintly ludicrous manoeuvre on Fox News to call for the declassification of Government memoranda that prove torture worked, there are two notable pieces in The Washington Post.
Over the weekend, former Bush Administration officials continued blowing smoke that the release of Government memoranda confirming the authorisation of torture was a “threat to national security” (rather than admitting that they are trying to cover up their roles in an illegal and ineffective programme). There was also some media silliness, notably 
Entries (RSS)