quote:

---

washingtonpost.com
Another Thunderbolt from Wilkerson

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, November 4, 2005; 12:45 PM

Another shocking accusation by former administration insider Lawrence Wilkerson appears to be going under the media radar today.

On NPR yesterday, the former chief of staff to the secretary of state said that he had uncovered a "visible audit trail" tracing the practice of prisoner abuse by U.S. soldiers directly back to Vice President Cheney's office.

Here's the audio of Wilkerson's interview with Steve Inskeep. The transcript is not publicly available, but here are the relevant excerpts:

"INSKEEP: While in the government, he says he was assigned to gather documents. He traced just how Americans came to be accused of abusing prisoners. In 2002, a presidential memo had ordered that detainees be treated in a manner consistent with the Geneva Conventions that forbid torture. Wilkerson says the vice president's office pushed for a more expansive policy.

"Mr. WILKERSON: What happened was that the secretary of Defense, under the cover of the vice president's office, began to create an environment -- and this started from the very beginning when David Addington, the vice president's lawyer, was a staunch advocate of allowing the president in his capacity as commander in chief to deviate from the Geneva Conventions. Regardless of the president having put out this memo, they began to authorize procedures within the armed forces that led to, in my view, what we've seen.

"INSKEEP: We have to get more detail about that because the military will say, the Pentagon will say they've investigated this repeatedly and that all the investigations have found that the abuses were committed by a relatively small number of people at relatively low levels. What hard evidence takes those abuses up the chain of command and lands them in the vice president's office, which is where you're placing it?

"Mr. WILKERSON: I'm privy to the paperwork, both classified and unclassified, that the secretary of State asked me to assemble on how this all got started, what the audit trail was, and when I began to assemble this paperwork, which I no longer have access to, it was clear to me that there was a visible audit trail from the vice president's office through the secretary of Defense down to the commanders in the field that in carefully couched terms -- I'll give you that -- that to a soldier in the field meant two things: We're not getting enough good intelligence and you need to get that evidence, and, oh, by the way, here's some ways you probably can get it. And even some of the ways that they detailed were not in accordance with the spirit of the Geneva Conventions and the law of war.

"You just -- if you're a military man, you know that you just don't do these sorts of things because once you give just the slightest bit of leeway, there are those in the armed forces who will take advantage of that. There are those in the leadership who will feel so pressured that they have to produce intelligence that it doesn't matter whether it's actionable or not as long as they can get the volume in. They have to do what they have to do to get it, and so you've just given in essence, though you may not know it, carte blanche for a lot of problems to occur."

....

---

quote:

---

"As long as you're following the Constitution and there's no torture and no inhumane treatment, I see nothing wrong with saying here is the worst of the worst. We know they have specific information to save American lives in terrorist attacks around the world. That's what we're talking about," Pat Roberts said.

---

quote:

---

Jane Mayer writes in the New Yorker that administration policies may preclude the prosecution of CIA agents who commit abuses or even kill detainees.

Mayer writes: "The Bush Administration has resisted disclosing the contents of two Justice Department memos that established a detailed interrogation policy for the Pentagon and the C.I.A. A March, 2003, classified memo was 'breathtaking,' the same source said. The document dismissed virtually all national and international laws regulating the treatment of prisoners, including war-crimes and assault statutes, and it was radical in its view that in wartime the President can fight enemies by whatever means he sees fit. According to the memo, Congress has no constitutional right to interfere with the President in his role as Commander-in-Chief, including making laws that limit the ways in which prisoners may be interrogated. Another classified Justice Department memo, issued in August, 2002, is said to authorize numerous 'enhanced' interrogation techniques for the C.I.A. These two memos sanction such extreme measures that, even if the agency wanted to discipline or prosecute agents who stray beyond its own comfort level, the legal tools to do so may no longer exist. . . .

"For nearly a year, Democratic senators critical of alleged abuses have been demanding to see these memos. 'We need to know what was authorized,' Carl Levin, a Democrat from Michigan, told me. . . . . Levin is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is supposed to have an oversight role in relation to the C.I.A. 'The Administration is getting away with just saying no.' "

---

quote:

---

On 10 November last year, the Islam Online website wrote: "US troops are reportedly using chemical weapons and poisonous gas in its large-scale offensive on the Iraqi resistance bastion of Fallujah, a grim reminder of Saddam Hussein's alleged gassing of the Kurds in 1988."

---

quote:

---

We have clear experience from the 1970s with recruiting a sizable number of people from the lowest mental categories," said White. After the Vietnam War ended, the Army accepted a higher proportion of low-scoring recruits, which led to training and discipline problems. -Former Army Secretary Thomas White

---

quote:

---

Well, how about the US Army? Are they credible?

---

Not in my books but I will take their word on this as it is corroborated by the Islam Online website and Italian State TV.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Zing!
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
So: I was wrong.
The Pentagon has now confirmed use of White Phosphorus "against violent insurgents" in Faluja(sp?). No word on civillian casualties from it...yet.

Fuuuuck.

Every time I say "no way we'd cross that line", I'm proven wrong by the most despicible administration in my lifetime.

This might well be the moment where history says "there was no justification for what they did- they went too far".
 

---

Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
 
White Phosphorous? Never heard of it being used in warfare. What does it do? burn the skin or cause horrible breathing problems? meh. While they're at it they might as well release a huge cloud of mustard gas too.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
It not only burns- it burns white hot and cant be extinguished.
It burns underwater.

It's fumes permanantly sear the lungs and it's been known to contaminate water supplies.

Baaad shit.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Basically, it melts people. People who are alive. You know, until they've melted.
 

---

Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
 
Cool! Gotta get me some of that! There's a few people I wouldn't mind turning into puddles of flaming goo.
 

---

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
 
I think in the first book by "Andy McNab", in the last firefight before the team gets captured, one of McNab's teammates takes a hit to one of the phosphor grenades in his belt, setting him on fire. Horrible way to go.
 

---

Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
 
Anyone have a link to this proclamation by the Pentagon?
 

---

Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4440664.stm

The thing is, the Pentagon said before admitting this that they hadn't even used the white phosphorous on combatants, only for "illumniation." In other words, the Pentagon--gasp!--lied.

Other than brief mentions in newspapers and online, there was nothing on this in the U.S. media. Nothing.
 

---

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
Every time I say "no way we'd cross that line"...

You're reminded of all the previous times you said that, and wonder why you still keep telling yourself these sick amoral fucks must have some measure of decency left in them?
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Call it a last gasp of blind patriotism: I really want my fellow americans- and elected officials- to have the common decency I even I possess.

I first joined Anmesty International as part of a petition to the UN to ban White Phosphorus (this was waaaaay back in high school).

Back when I still believed people's will could occasionally be heard via petitions, E-Mails and letters.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Well, petitions can work, if we're talking about ballot initiatives/referenda. But, if it's just a letter you're going to send to some official saying "hi, we're a lot of people, and we think such-and-such"... No. Not helpful at all.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
This was (IIRC, it's been over a decade) a petition of AI members, Red Cross and several U.S. congressmen, to be presented to the U.N.

Worked really well...just like the hours I spent E-Mailing and writing to have landmines banned.

Bah! FUCK humanity-
I'll go the easy nihilistic way and be able to always say "I told you so".
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
You say that, but pass up talking about HLA???
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
HLA?

My goal is to live like my idol: Johnny Rocketfingers.
 

---

Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
Speaking of things that would make Bush & Co. seem even worse:
Bush wanted to bomb al-Jazeera

When I first read about it, I said, "Must be a fake." However, the White House did not deny it, only saying it was "outlandish." And the British government did not deny it either, instead activating its Official Secrets Act, threatening legal action against any news organization that publishes the five-page memo. In other words, if such a memo doesn't exist, why was the Secrets Act activated?
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
I would believe it, using the excuse that they were not giving the full (US Version) of the story to the Arab world, thus possibly creating more people likely to resent the US for this ill conceived, ill proposed, ill executed excuse for a war in Iraq....

That said, I can say it was a party thing, since I don't think that either party, having started such an ill event, would have done anything different....
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
I'd believe that readily enough- It's not like Al Jezerra has not been very supportive of the terrorist's point of view and they do play every Al Queida message to the point where even their viewers (who certainly dont all agree with it) have complained.
While wrong, the military could make a case for Al Jezerra (called "Al Jizz" by the troops, BTW) supporting the terrorists.

Now, if they decided to say, force an American news source (like PBS) to spew right wing nonsense through intimidation and illegal hiring practices, that would be upsetting.

Oh wait...
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
No matter how propagandized you think they are, you don't bomb a civilian news organization in a country that's allowing you to use their land as your military base of operations. A ten-year-old would know better than that.
 

---

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
 
But think of all the fuel those bomb runs would save without having to fly all the way to Iraq.....
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TSN:
No matter how propagandized you think they are, you don't bomb a civilian news organization in a country that's allowing you to use their land as your military base of operations. A ten-year-old would know better than that.

---

A ten year old would have known not to invade Iraq untill Afghanistan was really secure too- Risk is ages eight and up.
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
Here are a couple of atricles to update this thread:

We have this one from The New Yorker.

quote:

---

THE MEMO
by JANE MAYER
How an internal effort to ban the abuse and torture of detainees was thwarted.
Issue of 2006-02-27
Posted 2006-02-20

One night this January, in a ceremony at the Officers� Club at Fort Myer, in Arlington, Virginia, which sits on a hill with a commanding view across the Potomac River to the Washington Monument, Alberto J. Mora, the outgoing general counsel of the United States Navy, stood next to a podium in the club�s ballroom. A handsome gray-haired man in his mid-fifties, he listened with a mixture of embarrassment and pride as his colleagues toasted his impending departure. Amid the usual tributes were some more pointed comments.

�Never has there been a counsel with more intellectual courage or personal integrity,� David Brant, the former head of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, said. Brant added somewhat cryptically, �He surprised us into doing the right thing.� Conspicuous for his silence that night was Mora�s boss, William J. Haynes II, the general counsel of the Department of Defense.

Back in Haynes�s office, on the third floor of the Pentagon, there was a stack of papers chronicling a private battle that Mora had waged against Haynes and other top Administration officials, challenging their tactics in fighting terrorism. Some of the documents are classified and, despite repeated requests from members of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee, have not been released. One document, which is marked �secret� but is not classified, is a twenty-two-page memo written by Mora. It shows that three years ago Mora tried to halt what he saw as a disastrous and unlawful policy of authorizing cruelty toward terror suspects.

The memo is a chronological account, submitted on July 7, 2004, to Vice Admiral Albert Church, who led a Pentagon investigation into abuses at the U.S. detention facility at Guant�namo Bay, Cuba. It reveals that Mora�s criticisms of Administration policy were unequivocal, wide-ranging, and persistent. Well before the exposure of prisoner abuse in Iraq�s Abu Ghraib prison, in April, 2004, Mora warned his superiors at the Pentagon about the consequences of President Bush�s decision, in February, 2002, to circumvent the Geneva conventions, which prohibit both torture and �outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.� He argued that a refusal to outlaw cruelty toward U.S.-held terrorist suspects was an implicit invitation to abuse. Mora also challenged the legal framework that the Bush Administration has constructed to justify an expansion of executive power, in matters ranging from interrogations to wiretapping. He described as �unlawful,� �dangerous,� and �erroneous� novel legal theories granting the President the right to authorize abuse. Mora warned that these precepts could leave U.S. personnel open to criminal prosecution.

In important ways, Mora�s memo is at odds with the official White House narrative. In 2002, President Bush declared that detainees should be treated �humanely, and to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles� of the Geneva conventions. The Administration has articulated this standard many times. Last month, on January 12th, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, responding to charges of abuse at the U.S. base in Cuba, told reporters, �What took place at Guant�namo is a matter of public record today, and the investigations turned up nothing that suggested that there was any policy in the department other than humane treatment.� A week later, the White House press spokesman, Scott McClellan, was asked about a Human Rights Watch report that the Administration had made a �deliberate policy choice� to abuse detainees. He answered that the organization had hurt its credibility by making unfounded accusations. Top Administration officials have stressed that the interrogation policy was reviewed and sanctioned by government lawyers; last November, President Bush said, �Any activity we conduct is within the law. We do not torture.� Mora�s memo, however, shows that almost from the start of the Administration�s war on terror the White House, the Justice Department, and the Department of Defense, intent upon having greater flexibility, charted a legally questionable course despite sustained objections from some of its own lawyers.

---

quote:

---

February 26, 2006
A Growing Afghan Prison Rivals Bleak Guant�namo
By TIM GOLDEN and ERIC SCHMITT

While an international debate rages over the future of the American detention center at Guant�namo Bay, Cuba, the military has quietly expanded another, less-visible prison in Afghanistan, where it now holds some 500 terror suspects in more primitive conditions, indefinitely and without charges.

Pentagon officials have often described the detention site at Bagram, a cavernous former machine shop on an American air base 40 miles north of Kabul, as a screening center. They said most of the detainees were Afghans who might eventually be released under an amnesty program or transferred to an Afghan prison that is to be built with American aid.

But some of the detainees have already been held at Bagram for as long as two or three years. And unlike those at Guant�namo, they have no access to lawyers, no right to hear the allegations against them and only rudimentary reviews of their status as "enemy combatants," military officials said.

Privately, some administration officials acknowledge that the situation at Bagram has increasingly come to resemble the legal void that led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling in June 2004 affirming the right of prisoners at Guant�namo to challenge their detention in United States courts.

While Guant�namo offers carefully scripted tours for members of Congress and journalists, Bagram has operated in rigorous secrecy since it opened in 2002. It bars outside visitors except for the International Red Cross and refuses to make public the names of those held there. The prison may not be photographed, even from a distance.

From the accounts of former detainees, military officials and soldiers who served there, a picture emerges of a place that is in many ways rougher and more bleak than its counterpart in Cuba. Men are held by the dozen in large wire cages, the detainees and military sources said, sleeping on the floor on foam mats and, until about a year ago, often using plastic buckets for latrines. Before recent renovations, they rarely saw daylight except for brief visits to a small exercise yard.

---

quote:

---

U.S. Cites Exception in Torture Ban
McCain Law May Not Apply to Cuba Prison

By Josh White and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, March 3, 2006; A04

Bush administration lawyers, fighting a claim of torture by a Guantanamo Bay detainee, yesterday argued that the new law that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody does not apply to people held at the military prison.

In federal court yesterday and in legal filings, Justice Department lawyers contended that a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, cannot use legislation drafted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to challenge treatment that the detainee's lawyers described as "systematic torture."

Government lawyers have argued that another portion of that same law, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, removes general access to U.S. courts for all Guantanamo Bay captives. Therefore, they said, Mohammed Bawazir, a Yemeni national held since May 2002, cannot claim protection under the anti-torture provisions.

Bawazir's attorneys contend that "extremely painful" new tactics used by the government to force-feed him and end his hunger strike amount to torture.

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler said in a hearing yesterday that she found allegations of aggressive U.S. military tactics used to break the detainee hunger strike "extremely disturbing" and possibly against U.S. and international law. But Justice Department lawyers argued that even if the tactics were considered in violation of McCain's language, detainees at Guantanamo would have no recourse to challenge them in court.

---