Humint Events Online: Heavy War-Crimes Talk Goes Mainstream

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Heavy War-Crimes Talk Goes Mainstream

This is pretty serious stuff-- even a dash of LIHOP in there for good measure:
Mr. Bush’s 2005 proclamation that “we do not torture” was long ago revealed as a lie. Antonio Taguba, the retired major general who investigated detainee abuse for the Army, concluded that “there is no longer any doubt” that “war crimes were committed.” Ms. Mayer uncovered another damning verdict: Red Cross investigators flatly told the C.I.A. last year that America was practicing torture and vulnerable to war-crimes charges.

Top Bush hands are starting to get sweaty about where they left their fingerprints. Scapegoating the rotten apples at the bottom of the military’s barrel may not be a slam-dunk escape route from accountability anymore.

No wonder the former Rumsfeld capo, Douglas Feith, is trying to discredit a damaging interview he gave to the British lawyer Philippe Sands for another recent and essential book on what happened, “Torture Team.” After Mr. Sands previewed his findings in the May issue of Vanity Fair, Mr. Feith protested he had been misquoted — apparently forgetting that Mr. Sands had taped the interview. Mr. Feith and Mr. Sands are scheduled to square off in a House hearing this Tuesday.

So hot is the speculation that war-crimes trials will eventually follow in foreign or international courts that Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, has publicly advised Mr. Feith, Mr. Addington and Alberto Gonzales, among others, to “never travel outside the U.S., except perhaps to Saudi Arabia and Israel.” But while we wait for the wheels of justice to grind slowly, there are immediate fears to tend. Ms. Mayer’s book helps cement the case that America’s use of torture has betrayed not just American values but our national security, right to the present day.

In her telling, a major incentive for Mr. Cheney’s descent into the dark side was to cover up for the Bush White House’s failure to heed the Qaeda threat in 2001. Jack Cloonan, a special agent for the F.B.I.’s Osama bin Laden unit until 2002, told Ms. Mayer that Sept. 11 was “all preventable.” By March 2000, according to the C.I.A.’s inspector general, “50 or 60 individuals” in the agency knew that two Al Qaeda suspects — soon to be hijackers — were in America. But there was no urgency at the top. Thomas Pickard, the acting F.B.I. director that summer, told Ms. Mayer that when he expressed his fears about the Qaeda threat to Mr. Ashcroft, the attorney general snapped, “I don’t want to hear about that anymore!”

After 9/11, our government emphasized “interrogation over due process,” Ms. Mayer writes, “to pre-empt future attacks before they materialized.” But in reality torture may well be enabling future attacks. This is not just because Abu Ghraib snapshots have been used as recruitment tools by jihadists. No less destructive are the false confessions inevitably elicited from tortured detainees. The avalanche of misinformation since 9/11 has compromised prosecutions, allowed other culprits to escape and sent the American military on wild-goose chases. The coerced “confession” to the murder of the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to take one horrific example, may have been invented to protect the real murderer.

8 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, has publicly advised Mr. Feith, Mr. Addington and Alberto Gonzales, among others, to “never travel outside the U.S., except perhaps to Saudi Arabia and Israel.”

ha ha!

2:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ha ha ha!!!

9:03 AM  
Blogger Ningen said...

Which means:

The coerced “confession” to the murder of [thousands of people in and around the World Trade Center on 9/11] by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to take one horrific example, may have been invented to protect the real murderer.

12:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi, Spooked,

I posted a note to you some time ago, am a friend of James of the multimedia total911 info site.

The Washington Post has just published (started yesterday) the first part of a 12-part series "investigating" the death of Chandra Levy. Already, the first four or five paragraphs are full of references to "mistakes" that were made by the police including 1) initiating a search for the body within a smaller radius of Rock Creek Park than supposedly intended by the second in command when he sent the cadets out to look for the body, thus allowing enough time for all DNA evidence to fade; 2) "accidentally" erasing her computer searches (found on her laptop prior to finding the body 10 months later); and others that I can't remember as I'm writing but there will undoubtedly be many more thoroughly bogus "admissions" by authorities.

I wondered whether you know much about the case. She was kiilled in April 2001, not long before the attacks.

Many thanks for any info. You might want to check out the articles. It looks like they'll run consecutively each day for 12 days, having started on Sunday, July 13.

All best. m.pollan@comcast.net

3:20 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

Thanks m.

I'll try to take a look at the stories, though I had always thought the case was a silly cable news distraction. I certainly have never heard any deep conspiracy to the Levy murder, though there were plenty of rumors Condit did it, of course.

7:06 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

"The coerced “confession” to the murder of [thousands of people in and around the World Trade Center on 9/11] by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to take one horrific example, may have been invented to protect the real murderer."

Indeed!

7:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

chandra levy, ha ha is that the distraction of all time or what!

7:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"chandra levy, ha ha is that the distraction of all time or what!"

Why would you say something like that? Ms. Levy was involved with a
United States Congressman.

It may well be that a conspiracy
is somehow involved with her murder and providing cover for Congressman Condit.

You "ha ha" even about something as serious as the death of a young woman who was having an affair with
a U.S. Congressman. Why do you do that?

8:38 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger