Smoking Gun: FBI memo - Bush authorizes torture

thebullet

Rebel without applause
Joined
Feb 25, 2003
Posts
1,247
I know that there are people on this site who think I am a screaming liberal, dispite my protestations to the contrary. A writer friend of mine told me that I've been nominated for the Gold Clit Award: Bleeding Heart Liberal most people want to hang by his balls.

In truth I'm a pragmatic kind of guy with a very liberal wife. Much of the stuff I post was sent to me by my wife. But it's all good, ya gotta admit.

And here is a humdinger:
____________________________________________________

FBI E-Mail Refers to Presidential Order
Authorizing Inhumane Interrogation Techniques
American Civil Liberties Union

Monday 20 December 2004

Newly obtained FBI records call Defense Department's
methods "torture," express concerns over "cover-up"
that may leave FBI "holding the bag" for abuses.

NEW YORK - A document released for the first time
today by the American Civil Liberties Union suggests
that President Bush issued an Executive Order
authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods
against detainees in Iraq. Also released by the ACLU
today are a slew of other records including a December
2003 FBI e-mail that characterizes methods used by the
Defense Department as "torture" and a June 2004
"Urgent Report" to the Director of the FBI that raises
concerns that abuse of detainees is being covered up.

"These documents raise grave questions about where
the blame for widespread detainee abuse ultimately
rests," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D.
Romero. "Top government officials can no longer hide
from public scrutiny by pointing the finger at a few low-ranking soldiers."

The documents were obtained after the ACLU and other
public interest organizations filed a lawsuit against
the government for failing to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request.

The two-page e-mail that references an Executive
Order states that the President directly authorized interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and "sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc." The ACLU is urging the White House to confirm or deny the existence of such an order and immediately to release the order if it exists. The FBI e-mail, which was sent in May 2004 from "On Scene Commander--Baghdad" to a handful of senior FBI officials, notes that the FBI has prohibited its agents from employing the techniques that the President is said to have authorized.

Another e-mail, dated December 2003, describes an
incident in which Defense Department interrogators at Guantanamo Bay impersonated FBI agents while using "torture techniques" against a detainee. The e-mail concludes "If this detainee is ever released or his story made public in any way, DOD interrogators will not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done [sic] the 'FBI' interrogators. The FBI will [sic] left holding the bag before the public."

The document also says that no "intelligence of a
threat neutralization nature" was garnered by the
"FBI" interrogation, and that the FBI's Criminal
Investigation Task Force (CITF) believes that the
Defense Department's actions have destroyed any chance
of prosecuting the detainee. The e-mail's author
writes that he or she is documenting the incident "in
order to protect the FBI."

"The methods that the Defense Department has adopted
are illegal, immoral, and counterproductive," said
ACLU staff attorney Jameel Jaffer. "It is astounding
that these methods appear to have been adopted as a
matter of policy by the highest levels of government."


The June 2004 "Urgent Report" addressed to the FBI
Director is heavily redacted. The legible portions of
the document appear to describe an account given to
the FBI's Sacramento Field Office by an FBI agent who
had "observed numerous physical abuse incidents of
Iraqi civilian detainees," including "strangulation,
beatings, [and] placement of lit cigarettes into the
detainees ear openings." The document states that
"[redacted] was providing this account to the FBI
based on his knowledge that [redacted] were engaged in
a cover-up of these abuses."

The release of these documents follows a federal
court order that directed government agencies to
comply with a year-old request under the Freedom of
Information Act filed by the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Peace. The New York Civil Liberties Union is co-counsel in the case.

Other documents released by the ACLU today include:

An FBI email regarding DOD personnel impersonating FBI officials during interrogations. The e-mail refers to a "ruse" and notes that "all of those [techniques] used in these scenarios" were approved by the Deputy Secretary of Defense. (Jan. 21, 2004)
Another FBI agent's account of interrogations at
Guantanamo in which detainees were shackled hand and
foot in a fetal position on the floor. The agent
states that the detainees were kept in that position
for 18 to 24 hours at a time and most had "urinated or defacated [sic]" on themselves. On one occasion, the agent reports having seen a detainee left in an unventilated, non-air conditioned room at a temperature "probably well over a hundred degrees." The agent notes: "The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his own hair out throughout the night." (Aug. 2, 2004)
An e-mail stating that an Army lawyer "worked hard to
cwrite [sic] a legal justification for the type of interrogations they (the Army) want to conduct" at Guantanamo Bay. (Dec. 9, 2002)
An e-mail noting the initiation of an FBI
investigation into the alleged rape of a juvenile male
detainee at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. (July 28, 2004)

An FBI agent's account of an interrogation at
Guantanamo - an interrogation apparently conducted by
Defense Department personnel - in which a detainee was
wrapped in an Israeli flag and bombarded with loud
music and strobe lights. (July 30, 2004)
The ACLU and its allies are scheduled to go to court
again this afternoon, where they will seek an order
compelling the CIA to turn over records related to an
internal investigation into detainee abuse. Although
the ACLU has received more than 9,000 documents from
other agencies, the CIA refuses to confirm or deny
even the existence of many of the records that the
ACLU and other plaintiffs have requested. The CIA is
reported to have been involved in abusing detainees in
Iraq and at secret CIA detention facilities around the
globe.

The lawsuit is being handled by Lawrence Lustberg
and Megan Lewis of the New Jersey-based law firm
Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, P.C.
Other attorneys in the case are Jaffer, Amrit Singh
and Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU; Art Eisenberg and
Beth Haroules of the NYCLU; and Barbara Olshansky and
Jeff Fogel of CCR.

The documents referenced above can be found at: http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/fbi.html

More on the lawsuit can be found at: http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/
 
Unfortunately nothing will come of this. Nothing will come of any of this.

We've decided that we like this war and we don't mind a little torture. We don't mind killing innocent civilians for no good purpose either. We don't care that the war made no sense, was ill conceived and terribly planned from the start.

No one cares at all, and nothing will come of this.

---dr.M.
 
You are wrong Mab...everything will come of this...everything...a new day in the middle east....millions of people, free at last...


amicus...
 
Nationalists.

The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.
-- George Orwell, "Notes on Nationalism," 1945

No sense even bothering.
 
dr_mabeuse said:
Unfortunately nothing will come of this. Nothing will come of any of this.

We've decided that we like this war and we don't mind a little torture. We don't mind killing innocent civilians for no good purpose either. We don't care that the war made no sense, was ill conceived and terribly planned from the start.

No one cares at all, and nothing will come of this.

---dr.M.

Agreed. If a smoking full-scale invasion didn't give America a sleepless night, what good is a smoking gun?

Bush is like a cockroach. When the sun has been extinguished and the earth is a frozen pebble, he'll still be scrabbling around behind the baseboards.

# # #

Btw, Nixon would be a liberal in the current political climate. You're one too. Be proud of it. Anything right of center by Bush/Cheney standards is edging into Nazi territory. And remember, we aren't the ones who screwed everything up. The people who still use the term "bleeding heart liberal" did that.
 
Last edited:
When you protect the ones you love and cherish...to kill a bear or a wolf or a snake is not great sin and terrorists who target the innocent are less than human.

You folks are pussies...in the worst sense of the word.

Shereads, I am disappointed in you, Dr. Mab is responsible for his own blindness...


amicus...
 
Last edited:
amicus said:

Shereads, I am disappointed in you, Dr. Mab is responsible for his own blindness...


amicus...

My blindness tells me that the man responsible for the 9/11 attacks is still free as a bird while we're pinned down breeding more terrorists in a country that had nothing to do with it.

But what the hell. They're all Arabs, right? They all deserve to die. As Rumsfeld said, Iraq was where the targets were, so fuck Bin Ladin.

Tell you what, Amicus: I'll meet you in Democratic Iraq next year for a nice roast pork dinner.

---dr.M.
 
Tell you what, Mab...just this week I offered my services as an 'imbed' to my son in laws outfit that is headed for Iraq in March...I doubt they will accept me as I am a bit long in the tooth, but I do have the experience and the qualifications.

The reason I did so was to be on scene and refute what you and other detractors to the American effort in the middle east have been whining about.

My reportage would reflect the 'objective' reality of the efforts of the free world to liberate the dictatorial and monarchical middle east, a thing you seem to appreciate.

I will keep you informed...

amicus...
 
Last edited:
Amicus said:
I for one would have conducted the interrogation of the slimy bastard that planned 9/11 and if I could have saved those 3000 innocent people...there is not much I would have left out to obtain that information.
In fact, Amicus I agree with you - at least I did on 9/11. I remember telling my wife that we should be killing the families of the 9/11 perpetrators to make an example of them as an object lesson of what happens when they bring their terror to America. In my angrier moments I still might support such radical actions.

As for the torture of a prisoner who has information that would immediately save lives, well, sometimes one's scruples have to be ignored for the 'greater good', I guess.

But these aren't the people who are being tortured. There are people in Passaic County Prison who have been tortured for nothing more than a traffic violation. I'm not making this up.
The vast majority of people who are being subjected to this cruel and unusual punishment are not terrorists. They get rounded up in a dragnet in Iraq, or arrested for some petty violation they may have committed years before in America and then they are held without access to counsel and tortured for the sake of torture. They have no information to give up. They are innocent bystanders caught up in America's rush to judgement. They are Arabs or Muslims who pay the price for that offense alone.

Isn't there a middle ground somewhere, even for you who support torture? Why are we creating all of these enemies by our outrageous treatment of prisoners? I remember reading that something like 90% of the prisoners in abu ghraib prison were innocent of any crime and the military knew that. You will say err or the side of caution. But I say, must we also torture these innocent people as well as hold them in prison?

What are we gaining by treating these people inhumanely other than more enemies of America?
 
thebullet said:
What are we gaining by treating these people inhumanely other than more enemies of America?

I'm surprised you have to ask, Bullet. Even a bleeding heart liberal can answer this one.

By behaving more like terrorists and tyrants, we can learn to think like them and predict where they (we?) will strike next.
 
By behaving more like terrorists and tyrants, we can learn to think like them and predict where they (we?) will strike next.

A point well taken, Shereads. Are the terrorists planning to strike next in Syria, Iran, North Korea, or Saudia Arabia? Whereever, I'm sure that the American army will beat them to it.
 
amicus said:
Tell you what, Mab...just this week I offered my services as an 'imbed' to my son in laws outfit that is headed for Iraq in March...I doubt they will accept me as I am a bit long in the tooth, but I do have the experience and the qualifications.

The reason I did so was to be on scene and refute what you and other detractors to the American effort in the middle east have been whining about.

My reportage would reflect the 'objective' reality of the efforts of the free world to liberate the dictatorial and monarchical middle east, a thing you seem to appreciate.

I will keep you informed...

amicus...

I'm glad to see you put objective in quotes. You wouldn't be going there with any kind of bias, would you?

If you want something more objective than American reporting, just read the news from Iraq as presented by other countries who aren't involved. The general consesnus is that we've unleashed a shit storm and brought the ciountry to the verge of civil war. There will be no happy endings for Iraq. The administration keeps on saying that what's going on there now are the doings of a few trying to derail the upcoming elections, as if it'll stop at the end on January. That's not the case. This is a rebellion against what most Iraqis see as an occupation by a foreign power.

I don't doubt for a second the dedication and good intentions of the majority of our troops there. I don't even think that Bush was lying when he said he wanted to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq. I don't fault him for motive. I fault him for gross stupidity, astonishing arrogance and near-total incompentence.

You can't bring about democracy at the point of a gun, and no one wants to see the armed troops of another country parading in their streets, telling what they can and can't do, no matter how pure the foreigners' motives might be. I don't understand why this is so fucking hard to understand. If someone breaks into you house with a gun and shoots your kid and tells you he's there to help you, what's your response going to be?

Better than imbedding yourself with a military unit over there, why not just go as a free American citizen and roam around amongst the people and bask in their goodwill towards Americans? Let us know how it turns out.

---dr.M.
 
the bullet, shereads and dr mab...

It is curious the way the world works....for many years, in the 50's and later, I would not buy a japanese made product or even get in a german volkswagen.

The atrocities committed by Japanese and Germans were true genocidal efforts whereas the 'torture' americans are accused of is more on the order of discomfort and psychological fear.

But time, and really not a great deal of it, a half century and a little has made us all great bedfellows with the former axis powers of world war two.

Gary speaks with great enthusiasm of the grandeur of europe and the middle east of long ago. I am sure there are even entrenched enclaves of those who still admire the old Roman empire as they did up pottery in limey backyards. And the great efforts of colonization by the Dutch and the preceeding Vikings, the spanish and the portuguese and the italians.

Alas my backward looking friends, tis an age long past. The royal family bloodlines flow no more, the kings and queens and earls and lords of the stately manor will forever be just things of the past.

The great melting pot of america percolates right along, even now disseminating dna, genes and chromosomes in Baghdad and Kabul right in the next room with the Brits bouncing on arab bellies.

European paternity faced that crisis in the aftermath of ww2 as english women were very kind to the yank GI's, any port in a storm. Some cartoon character puzzled at who the enemy was, "look within...the enemy be us..."

Oh, yeah, I liked Benny Hill also.


amicus...
 
Amicus,

I love this idea of volunteering to go over to Iraq and imbed yourself with an army unit so you can report 'objectively' on all the good we're doing. Only you could fail to see the irony in that statement.

But let me ask you something else. If, as looks probably now, the Iraqis elect an exclusively Shi'a government, and if, as also seems likely, they develop a rigid theocracy, heavily influenced if not controlled by Iran, with a vehement anti-American bias, are you prepared to accept that as the will of the Iraqi people? Would you consider that a "mission accomplished" in terms of bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq? Will that make the cost of the war in terms of life and money spent worthwhile?

And if not, then why did we go in there in the first place?

---dr.M.
 
Dr. Mab....

I heard on a newscast that about 8000 building projects were underway in Iraq. Including schools, hospitals, and infra structure of roads and water and sewage lines power and telephone lines, etcetera.

I thought perhaps to comment, photograph and write about those projects and perhaps do a few video reports if I can manage a satellite uplink with a media outlet stateside.

Not sure you have a valid question concerning Theocracy as it is my understanding that a 'democracy' with a consitution containing rights and liberties is the stated intent in terms of forming a government.

I think no one expects an easy transition from a dictatorship to a democracy. I also doubt if the powers that be have left it open for the Iraqi voting public to choose a Theocracy as the new form of government. I could be wrong, but I do not think the establishment of a 'theocratic' from of government is in the cards.

seasons greetings....

amicus...
 
As I say, I know that we're doing a lot of material good over there, or at least trying to. I think most people know that, although a lot of people see that as a scam by US firms to get rich off the war. What we don't seem to realize is that a person who's lost a son or a daughter to collateral American damage doesn't give much of a a fuck about having a school built or a street paved. The cost of the war in Iraqi lives is one thing you never hear about on the American news, and I mean never. So much for liberal bias.

The question is though, are we prepared to really let the Iraqis have the kind of government they choose through a free election, or are we going to tell them what they can and can't have? If it's the latter, then all this talk about giving them freedom and democracy is just so much PR and we're nothing but a neocolonial power imposing our will on a conquered people, no matter how benign we say our intentions are.

---dr.M.
 
Dr. Mab...

We have free elections in the United States wherein the voters choose those who will represent them in the halls of government.

But even here, voters cannot install a theocracy or a dictatorial form of government that would abridge the constitutional guarantees of life, liberty and the pursuit.

So, again, I do not see your question as valid. The Iraqi voters do not have the choice to vote themselves into a form of government that would violate stated human rights. We cannot do so either, but that does not corrupt the concept of a free election.

amicus...
 
dr_mabeuse said:
The question is though, are we prepared to really let the Iraqis have the kind of government they choose through a free election, or are we going to tell them what they can and can't have? If it's the latter, then all this talk about giving them freedom and democracy is just so much PR and we're nothing but a neocolonial power imposing our will on a conquered people, no matter how benign we say our intentions are.

---dr.M.

Remember Rumsfeld's triumphant press conference after Mission Accomplished? A reporter asked what the U.S. response would be if a democratic election produced an Islamic regime.

"That will never happen."

Tim Russert on Meet the Press asked some Republican spokeshead last week, "What if, after losing more than 1200 American lives and 10,000 Iraqi civilians, the first democratically elected president of Iraq is someone sponsored by Iran?"

There was no answer this time. The senator took a circuitous route to a different topic and used the opportunity to remind us viewers that Freedom is Good.

That's how amicus will answer your questions, Dr. M.
 
Shereads...

happy holidays to you, too...

There was an 'unconditional surrender' in both Japan and Germany following ww2.

I think that you and many here, who call the war in Iraq, a war, don't really accept the meaning of the word, war.

The Iraqi government and country has been conquered, in war, quite like Japan and Germany and Italy.

You pussyfoot around the concept of democracy, hoping against all hope that american efforts to bring a form of humane government to the Iraqi people will fail.

It will not fail, it will succeed; but it will not please you or the host of other detractors that want to see the United States fail in this effort to liberate an oppressed people.

Only the Kerryite anti war radicals in the Vietnam era match your rabid hatred of all things american. Perhaps you would be happier in one of the middle eastern nations where women still have no human rights. I would arrange passage for you.


amicus...
 
amicus said:
But even here, voters cannot install a theocracy or a dictatorial form of government that would abridge the constitutional guarantees of life, liberty and the pursuit.


Well, leaving aside the fact that we both know that the government does plenty to abridge our right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the fact is that that Islam doesn't embrace our idea of separation of church and state, which they find downright blasphemous. I doubt very much that the people would accept a constitution that excluded or even drew a distinction between religion and government. All the real political power in Iraq is in the hands of the religious leaders. No way you're going to keep religion out of government.

But here: I'll go on record with my prediction of what’s going to happen in Iraq with the election:

The election will be held with a state of emergency still in effect. Large numbers of Sunnis will boycott, knowing that they can’t win, and Allawi or some drone will be elected president. The first thing he’ll do is ask the Americans to stay until order can be restored, which will be never, because the Sunni’s are in revolt. There will be a power battle between elected Shi'a extremists and Allawi (the polls I’ve seen show that most Iraqis want an Islamic theocracy modeled on that of Iran), and the extremists will win the hearts and minds of the people while Allawi will be seen as no more than an American puppet.

In order to stifle dissent and violence, Allawi will resort to the same tactics Saddam used: torture, suspension of rule of law, and murder, and the people will find they’ve just exchanged one brutal dicatator for another, this one sponsored and endorsed by the USA.

The Arab world view American support of Allawi as more evidence of our anti-Arab agenda and will add this outrage in Iraq to their grievance list. We’ll see terrorist attacks escalate outside of Iraq, in America, Britain, and Saudi Arabia. Islamic extremists, knowing that the US is bogged down in Iraq, will become bolder and overthrow the government of Saudi Arabia and make trouble throughout the gulf. Iran, well-aware that they can fight a proxy war with the US by arming Shi’a extremists in Iraq will do just that, and use the diversion to finish their nuclear weapons program.

Thus we’ll have brought about everything we sought to prevent with this half-assed invasion: increased terrorism and drastically reduced US security, creation of millions more jihasists and suicide bombers, a nuclear weapon in the hands of Islamic extremists with delivery capability (Iran already has a missile that can reach central Europe, not to mention Israel), and destablization of the very region we were seeking to help.

That’s my prediction. And I think anyone who bothered to learn anything about Iraq prior to the invasion would come to the same conclusions.

Oh yeah: and we still won't capture Bin Ladin.

---dr.M.
 
Last edited:
A brief detour off-topic, since I was reminded of Iran:

Just last week I heard the first common-sense theory of why Saddam continued to refuse full access to weapons inspectors if there was nothing to hide: He needed to keep Iran guessing. If he allowed the U.N. to confirm that he had no weapons, he wouldn't be able to fend off an invasion.

I was struck by the fact that every other discussion about his motives had assumed it had something to do with us. We're so focused on the USA as the center of the universe, that it probably never occurred to Bush/Cheney that Saddam was more concerned with the enemy at his border than the one in Washington.

When the dust has cleared and the bodies are buried and things begin to normalize in Iraq, we will have accomplished the replacement of one tyrant who hated us with another one who hates us just as much. It doesn't take a math wizard to figure out that an Islamic majority will elect Islamic leadership. Short of giving some sort of handicap to the minority, and enforcing our will with a permanent military presence, there is no other equation.

The people Saddam didn't target as enemies of the state will be targeted by an Iran-sponsored regime as enemies of Islam. The insurgents know, as Saddam did, that the losers in Iraq will face problems having nothing to do with America. We have no solutions to offer that make an end to the fighting worthwhile.

There will be some big winners on this side of the globe, though: investors in companies like Halliburton that are willing to do business with dictatorships using foreign-registered subsidiaries if necessary. The Project for the New American Century isn't really about America, either.
 
dr_mabeuse said:
Oh yeah: and we still won't capture Bin Ladin.

---dr.M.

Whether we do or don't, we will have gone to enormous trouble to fulfill his wishes. GWB has been dancing to Bin Ladin's tune since 9/12. Is there anything Bin Laden might have hoped we'd do differently?
 
Back
Top