Bush Admits Knowing of Torture Meetings
Filed under: George W. Bush, National Security, Torture, United States, War on Terror — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on April 13, 2008 @ 3:00 pm CEST
You know, there was a time when Presidents lied about this kind of thing. Plausible deniability it’s called, if I’m not mistaken. Not so George W. Bush, the man knows no shame when it comes to torture:
In a stunning admission to ABC news Friday night, President Bush declared that he knew his top national security advisers discussed and approved specific details of the CIA’s use of torture. Bush reportedly told ABC, “I’m aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved.” Bush also defended the use of waterboarding. Recent reports indicate that high-level advisers including Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and George Tenet were part of the National Security Council’s “Principals Committee” that met regularly and approved the CIA’s use of “combined” “enhanced” interrogation techniques, even pushing the limits of the now infamous 2002 Justice Department “torture memo.” These top advisers reportedly signed off on how the CIA would interrogate suspects – whether they would be slapped, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning.
“We have always known that the CIA’s use of torture was approved from the very top levels of the U.S. government, yet the latest revelations about knowledge from the president himself and authorization from his top advisers only confirms our worst fears,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “It is a very sad day when the president of the United States subverts the Constitution, the rule of law, and American values of justice.”
You can say that again.
What all of this indicates is that the reports that came out recently were accurate. The Principals met to discuss what kinds of torture were allowed, and Bush knew about it. It’s all part of the definition of ‘executive power’ Bush and his disciples believe in.
The US Constitution was clearly meant to limit the power of the president, but Bush and his most trusted advisers disagree. To them, the president is something like an elected monarch. There’s nothing he can’t do.
Even Hamilton himself would probably be shocked. He’s the one who wrote about energy in the executive, but even he would probably not have dreamed that 200 years later, the ‘executive’ would believe that when it comes to national security, he can do as he pleases.
1 George Bush » Bush Admits Knowing of Torture Meetings
April 13, 2008 @ 5:02 pm CEST[…] Michael van der Galien wrote an interesting post today on Bush Admits Knowing of Torture MeetingsHere’s a quick excerptYou know, there was a time when Presidents lied about this kind of thing. Plausible deniability it’s called, if I’m not mistaken. Not so George W. Bush, the man knows no shame when it comes to torture:. ©2008 PoliGazette. … […]
2 Bill W
April 13, 2008 @ 7:29 pm CESTMichael, I take issue with your constant use of the word Torture to describe these activities. As discussed in earlier threads, these enhanced techniques are not torture and have not been declared torture by anyone definitively. Waterboarding is the only one of the techniques described that is in debate as to whether it is torture or not, and there is no definitive rule of law here - save all the citations, because I can cite as many back that say it is not.
These are candy assed slaps on the wrist on the continuum of physical or psychological handling of prisoners. Your continued campaign to equate these things to torture, or to make a moral equivalence between them and what radical islamists have done is incomprehensible- I don’t understand the logic in your arguments or your motivation.
None of these people will be brought up on War Crimes trials or be treated as war criminals - because they aren’t - it is that simple, no matter how much people like you fulminate. At least ABC put scare quotes around their use of the word torture.
In a "stunning admission" - who was he "admitting" something to - they asked a question and he answered it. The buck stops with him which, if we know anything about this president, it always does. He does what he believes is right to keep the country safe and to keep the world safe (after due diligence and legal advice, and always within the law from anything that has been learned to this point), and damned with the personal opinion polls in the short term. No one should be stunned by it.
3 C Stanley
April 14, 2008 @ 2:42 am CESTI think it would have been a sign of extreme incompetence if he hadn’t been aware of the meetings, or if he hadn’t addressed what techniques were to be permitted in interrogations. I can understand disagreeing with the conclusions that they came to, but that’s different than acting shocked that Bush knew about this. Even on the issue of what they were deciding, I think historical context is important- they didn’t exactly invent the methods, they were deciding which previously used methods were to be permitted. I certainly disagree with where they drew some of the lines, particularly with waterboarding and with the lack of oversight which led to Abu Graib. But the historical perspective is very important before declaring Bush as some kind of historically egregious example of abuse of power to permit torture; I would bet that the entire 20th century contains presidents who would similarly cause shock and dismay from some of the founders.
4 Michael van der Galien
April 14, 2008 @ 9:46 am CESTBill: waterboarding has been considered torture by international law since… very long. Americans even prosecuted Japanese for waterboarding Americans.
There really isn’t a debate about what is and what is not torture possible; it has been established by treaties and international customs. The word hasn’t been ‘debatable’ since the days of the inquisition.
5 marc
April 15, 2008 @ 6:05 pm CESTOne question is this: Would you prefer that Bush lie about what he knew? Really? If so, why?
Denying the truth may be easier but it’s rarely better.
6 Tully
April 16, 2008 @ 2:30 am CESTBill: waterboarding has been considered torture by international law since… very long…There really isn’t a debate about what is and what is not torture possible; it has been established by treaties and international customs. The word hasn’t been ‘debatable’ since the days of the inquisition.
Bullsh*t. Michael, as I have pointed out repeatedly on this blog, what constitutes torture under both US-accepted treaty and US domestic law as applied in America is defined in US Code. Which you continue to ignore, refusing to delve into the details of either while claiming you’re citing both. Your continual refusal to justify your claims using the actual statutes destroys any credibility on your part. You can call cat fur cotton candy but it doesn’t make it so, nor will repeating the claim make it true.
Bill W nails it. The only thing that comes close is waterboarding, and that’s debateable between reasonable people who are actually interested in what the law actually is and how it applies, a category you seem determined to not be included in. And it’s no revelation at all that three upper-level Al Qaeda members were waterboarded by US agents. Bush admitted it months ago in an open conference.
Lonely since the Paulites retired?