Friday, July 3, 2015

Don't listen to me on torture, listen to this Republican military dude

Don't listen to me on torture, listen to this Republican military dude

0 comments

 

I got a few snarky emails or blog comments yesterday from Michael Smerconish listeners (I thought conservatives had stopped listening to him....). My stumbling voice-for-print is certainly a fair enough target, but a couple of people were also outraged when I said that the primary goal of the torture program as it unfolded became less to get real actionable intelligence and more to get info that was desired by Dick Cheney that would falsely link al-Qaeda and thus 9/11 to Saddan Hussein and Iraq, justifying the war they went ahead and fought anyway.

OK, maybe I'm not a primary source on this, but how about Lawrence Wilkerson, the former Army colonel and Colin Powell aide (and Republican). Here's what he wrote today:

Likewise, what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002--well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion--its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa'ida.

So furious was this effort that on one particular detainee, even when the interrogation team had reported to Cheney's office that their detainee "was compliant" (meaning the team recommended no more torture), the VP's office ordered them to continue the enhanced methods. The detainee had not revealed any al-Qa'ida-Baghdad contacts yet. This ceased only after Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, under waterboarding in Egypt, "revealed" such contacts. Of course later we learned that al-Libi revealed these contacts only to get the torture to stop.

There in fact were no such contacts. (Incidentally, al-Libi just "committed suicide" in Libya. Interestingly, several U.S. lawyers working with tortured detainees were attempting to get the Libyan government to allow them to interview al-Libi....)

And so the big story today is...Nancy Pelosi? Look, I'm not at all a Pelosi fan, and I do think it's unconscionable that she didn't use her powers to do more to stop Bush-era tortures, and that the day will come for dealing with that, but I also think it's about the 41st paragraph of the story. The lede (to use some journalism-ese) is that the vice president of the United States sought torture to extract false confessions to help start a war in which more than 4,000 Americans and at least 100,000 Iraqis (and probably a lot more) died. Karl Rove claims that Nancy Pelosi was an accomplice to this -- I don't think that's exactly right but if she had been an accomplice she would have been an accomplice to what increasingly looks like a war crime. Good to know Karl's on board.

0 comments
We encourage respectful comments but reserve the right to delete anything that doesn't contribute to an engaging dialogue.
Help us moderate this thread by flagging comments that violate our guidelines.

Comment policy:

Philly.com comments are intended to be civil, friendly conversations. Please treat other participants with respect and in a way that you would want to be treated. You are responsible for what you say. And please, stay on topic. If you see an objectionable post, please report it to us using the "Report Abuse" option.

Please note that comments are monitored by Philly.com staff. We reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable. Personal attacks, especially on other participants, are not permitted. We reserve the right to permanently block any user who violates these terms and conditions.

Additionally comments that are long, have multiple paragraph breaks, include code, or include hyperlinks may not be posted.

Read 0 comments
 
comments powered by Disqus
About this blog

Will Bunch
Also on Philly.com
letter icon Newsletter