On December 11, the Senate Armed Services Committee issued a compelling report into the torture and abuse of prisoners in US custody (PDF), based on a detailed analysis of how Chinese torture techniques, which are used in US military schools to train personnel to resist interrogation if captured, were reverse engineered and applied to prisoners captured in the “War on Terror.”
The techniques, taught as part of the SERE programs (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) include sleep deprivation, the prolonged use of stress positions, forced nudity, hooding, exposure to extreme temperatures, subjecting prisoners to loud music and flashing lights, “treating them like animals,” and, in some cases, the ancient torture technique known as waterboarding, a form of controlled drowning that the torturers of the Spanish Inquisition called “tortura del agua.”
The report rejected the conclusions of over a dozen investigations, conducted since the Abu Ghraib scandal in 2004, which identified problems concerning the treatment of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo, but which were not authorized to gaze up the chain of command to blame senior officials for approving the use of torture by US forces, and for instigating abusive policies.
This enabled the administration to maintain, as it did with Abu Ghraib, that any abuse was the result of the rogue activities of “a few bad apples,” but the Senate Committee report comprehensively demolished this defense. The authors wrote:
“The abuse of detainees in US custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of “a few bad apples” acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees. Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority.”
Those singled out for blame include President George W. Bush (for stripping prisoners of the protections of the Geneva Conventions in February 2002, which paved the way for all the abuse that followed), former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former legal counsel (and now chief of staff) David Addington, former Pentagon general counsel William J. Haynes II, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers, former White House general counsel (and later US Attorney General) Alberto Gonzales, former White House deputy counsel Timothy Flanigan, former Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee, former Justice Department legal adviser John Yoo, former Guantánamo commanders Maj. Gen. Michael Dunlavey and Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, and Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the former commander of coalition forces in Iraq.
The one senior official who was not mentioned presumably because of the talent for remaining behind the scenes that once earned him the secret service nickname “Backseat” was Dick Cheney. However, just four days later, as if to make up for his omission from the report, Cheney was interviewed by ABC News, and took the opportunity to present a detailed defense of the administration’s national security policies, throwing down a very public gauntlet to critics of torture, Guantánamo, illegal wiretapping and the invasion of Iraq, and raising fears that he was only doing so because a Presidential pardon is just around the corner.
Cheney’s most significant remark was his first admission in public that he was involved in approving the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-confessed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks (who, it should be noted, claimed responsibility for the attacks before he was captured by US forces). However, the entire interview is worth looking at, as Cheney’s version of the truth does not stand up to scrutiny, and features ten lies that should not be allowed to pass without further comment and analysis.
1) On the supposed legality of unauthorized wiretapping
Asked what he thought about suggestions from Barack Obama’s transition team that the Bush administration’s homeland security policy “has basically been torture and illegal wiretapping, and that they want to undo the central tenets of your anti-terrorist policy,” Cheney replied, “They’re wrong. On the question of terrorist surveillance, this was always a policy to intercept communications between terrorists, or known terrorists, or so-called dirty numbers,’ and folks inside the United States, to capture those international communications. It’s worked. It’s been successful. It’s now embodied in the FISA statute that we passed last year, and that Barack Obama voted for, which I think was a good decision on his part. It’s a very, very important capability. It is legal. It was legal from the very beginning. It is constitutional, and to claim that it isn’t I think is just wrong.”
THE LIE: Although the Bush administration secured Congressional approval for the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) in the week after the 9/11 attacks (the founding document of the “War on Terror,” which granted the President seemingly open-ended powers “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001”), the approval for the warrantless surveillance of communications to and from the United States that followed on September 25 was neither “legal” nor “constitutional.”
In a series on Dick Cheney in the Washington Post last summer, Barton Gellman and Jo Becker explained how, on the day of the 9/11 attacks, Cheney and David Addington swiftly assembled a team that included Timothy Flanigan and John Yoo to begin “contemplating the founding question of the legal revolution to come: What extraordinary powers will the President need for his response?” Gellman and Becker described how Flanigan, with advice from Yoo, drafted the AUMF, and Yoo explained that “they used the broadest possible language because this war was so different, you can’t predict what might come up’.”
In fact, as the authors point out, they “knew very well what would come next: the interception without a warrant of communications to and from the United States.” Although warrantless communications intercepts had been forbidden by federal law since 1978, the administration claimed that they were “justified, in secret, as incident to’ the authority Congress had just granted” the President, in a memorandum that Yoo finalized on 25 September. Far from being “legal” and “constitutional,” therefore, the secret memorandum was the first brazen attempt by the key policymakers (in the Office of the Vice President and the Pentagon) to use the AUMF as cover for an unprecedented expansion of presidential power that was intended to cut Congress, the judiciary, and all other government departments out of the loop.
2) On the definition of torture
Moving on to the allegations of torture, Cheney said, “On the question of so-called torture,’ we don’t do torture, we never have. It’s not something that this administration subscribes to. Again, we proceeded very cautiously; we checked, we had the Justice Department issue the requisite opinions in order to know where the bright lines were that you could not cross. The professionals involved in that program were very, very cautious, very careful, wouldn’t do anything without making certain it was authorized and that it was legal. And any suggestion to the contrary is just wrong.”
THE LIE: The claim, “we don’t do torture,” which President Bush has also peddled on numerous occasions, is an outright lie. The definition of torture, as laid down in the UN Convention Against Torture, to which the US is a signatory, is “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person.” However, in the summer of 2002 (obviously with Cheney’s knowledge), John Yoo, with input from Addington, Gonzales and Flanigan, drafted another secret memorandum, issued on August 1 (PDF), which has become known as the “Torture Memo.” This extraordinary document one of the most legally manipulative in the whole of the “War on Terror” drew creatively on historical rulings about torture in countries including Northern Ireland and Bosnia, and attempted to claim that, for the pain inflicted to count as torture, it “must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.”
Last summer, Yoo confirmed that Addington was responsible for another of the memo’s radical claims that, as Commander in Chief, the President could authorize torture if he felt that it was necessary and also confirmed that a second opinion was signed off on August 1, 2002, which, unlike the first (leaked after the Abu Ghraib scandal in 2004) has never been made public. An unnamed source cited by Gellman and Becker explained that this second memo contained a long list of techniques approved for use by the CIA, which included waterboarding, but apparently drew the line at threatening to bury a prisoner alive.
As a result, all Cheney’s talk of “careful” and “cautious” legal advice is nothing more than a failed attempt to justify redefining torture. Outside of the White House and the Pentagon, it has always been abundantly clear that the SERE techniques (let alone the more extreme methods approved for use by the CIA) are torture, pure and simple, and the Senate Committee’s recent report quotes extensively from a number of bodies the Air Force, the Defense Department’s Criminal Investigative Task Force, the Army’s International and Operational Law Division, the Navy and the Marine Corps who were opposed to their implementation for this very reason. Others, who took their complaints to the highest levels, were Alberto J. Mora, the head of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, and the FBI.
3) On intelligence obtained through torture
Following his defense of the interrogation techniques authorized by the administration, Cheney continued: “Did it produce the desired results? I think it did. I think, for example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was the number three man in al-Qaeda, the man who planned the attacks of 9/11, provided us with a wealth of information. There was a period of time there, three or four years ago, when about half of everything we knew about al-Qaeda came from that one source.”
THE LIE: With exquisite timing, Cheney’s bombastic pronouncements about the torture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and its supposed value coincided with the publication, in Vanity Fair, of an article by David Rose, in which a number of senior officials from both the FBI and the CIA directly refuted Cheney’s claims. The article, which is worth reading in its entirety, focused primarily on the torture of Abu Zubaydah, Binyam Mohamed and Jose Padilla (which I have discussed at length before), but there were also key insights into the torture of KSM. Although President Bush claimed that KSM had provided “many details of other plots to kill innocent Americans,” a former senior CIA official, who read all the interrogation reports from KSM’s torture in secret CIA custody, explained that “90 percent of it was total fucking bullshit,” and a former Pentagon analyst added, “KSM produced no actionable intelligence. He was trying to tell us how stupid we were.”
In addition, Cheney’s claims about KSM were directly contradicted by Jack Cloonan, a senior FBI operative whose torture-free interrogation of al-Qaeda operatives in the years before 9/11 provides an object lesson in how the administration should have operated afterwards. Disputing the unspecified claims that, as Cheney put it, the interrogation of KSM had produced “a wealth of information,” Cloonan said, “The proponents of torture say, Look at the body of information that has been obtained by these methods.’ But if KSM and Abu Zubaydah did give up stuff, we would have heard the details.” Rose added that a former CIA officer asked, “Why can’t they say what the good stuff from Abu Zubaydah or KSM is? It’s not as if this is sensitive material from a secret, vulnerable source. You’re not blowing your source but validating your program. They say they can’t do this, even though five or six years have passed, because it’s a continuing operation.’ But has it really taken so long to check it all out?”
However, what was probably the most damning opinion was offered by FBI director Robert Mueller:
“I ask Mueller: So far as he is aware, have any attacks on America been disrupted thanks to intelligence obtained through what the administration still calls ‘enhanced techniques’?
“‘I’m really reluctant to answer that,’ Mueller says. He pauses, looks at an aide, and then says quietly, declining to elaborate: ‘I don’t believe that has been the case.'”
4) On approval for the use of torture on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
The key elements of Cheney’s admission that waterboarding was used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and that Cheney believed that this was “appropriate,” are as follows:
Jonathan Karl: Did you authorize the tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
Dick Cheney: I was aware of the program certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the agency, in effect, came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn’t do. And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do, and I supported it.
Jonathan Karl: In hindsight, do you think any of those tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others went too far?
Dick Cheney: I don’t.
Jonathan Karl: And on KSM, one of those tactics, of course, widely reported was waterboarding, and that seems to be a tactic we no longer use. Even that you think was appropriate?
Dick Cheney: I do.
THE LIE: Cheney’s explanation of how he came to “support” the CIA program that was responsible for the torture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (and numerous other “high-value detainees”) suggests that he was little more than an adviser for a preconceived project. Yet again, nothing could be further from the truth.
To understand why, it is necessary to examine how the “Torture Memos” of August 2002 came about, by looking at the events of November 13, 2001, when, under the cover of his regular weekly meeting with the President, Cheney played the leading role in circulating and gaining approval for a presidential order that authorized the President to seize “terror suspects” anywhere in the world and imprison them as “enemy combatants” without charge or trial, (or, if required, to try them in Military Commissions, which were empowered to accept secret evidence and evidence obtained through torture).
Approved within an hour by only two other figures in the White House associate counsel Bradford Berenson, and deputy staff secretary Stuart Bowen, whose objections that it had to be seen by other presidential advisors were only dropped after “rapid, urgent persuasion” that the President “was standing by to sign and that the order was too sensitive to delay” the order was the first move in a deliberate ploy to strip prisoners of rights, so that they could be interrogated as the administration saw fit.
This was confirmed the following day, when Cheney told the US Chamber of Commerce that terrorists do not “deserve to be treated as prisoners of war.” It took him another ten weeks to persuade the President to agree with him, but in the meantime the pressure to approve the use of torture increased when, shortly after Guantánamo opened, a CIA delegation came to the White House to explain, as John Yoo described it, that they were “going to have some real difficulties getting actionable intelligence from detainees,” if interrogators were obliged to confine themselves to treatment permitted by the Geneva Conventions.
While this timeline confirms that CIA representatives pressed for removing the protections of the Geneva Conventions in mid-January 2002, it’s also clear that Cheney had a similar plan in mind at least two months earlier. After the CIA visit, Addington wrote another notorious memorandum to which the rather less articulate Alberto Gonzales put his name in which the Conventions’ “strict limits on questioning of enemy prisoners” were seen as hindering attempts “to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists.”
This was issued on January 25, and on February 6 Addington provided the President with the words for his next presidential order, which, as Cheney had signaled on November 14, stated that the protections of the Geneva Conventions did not apply to prisoners seized in the “War on Terror.” The final development came after the capture of Abu Zubaydah on March 28, 2002, when, as John Yoo explained, CIA officials returned to the White House to ask “what the legal limits on interrogation are.” As described above, this led to the “Torture Memos” of August 2002, even though the torture of Zubaydah began four months before the memos were issued.
In conclusion, then, although the CIA had some input, the development of the entire program, from November 13, 2001 to August 1, 2002, in which prisoners were defined as “enemy combatants,” stripped of all rights so that they could be interrogated, and then set up for torture, was driven not by the CIA but by Cheney and his close advisers.
5) On the prisoners in Guantánamo
When Jonathan Karl mentioned that President Bush had said that he wanted to close Guantánamo two years ago, and asked, “Why has that not happened?” Cheney said, “It’s very hard to do. Guantánamo has been the repository, if you will, of hundreds of terrorists, or suspected terrorists, that we’ve captured since 9/11. They many of them, hundreds, have been released back to their home countries. What we have left is the hardcore. Their cases are reviewed on an annual basis to see whether or not they’re still a threat, whether or not they’re still intelligence value in terms of continuing to hold them. But and we’re down now to some 200 being held at Guantánamo that includes the core group, the really high-value targets like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
THE LIE: Cheney’s description of the remaining prisoners as “the hardcore” is typical, but by no means accurate, as the Vice President has always claimed that those in Guantánamo are “the hardcore” or “the worst of the worst.” Just two weeks after Guantánamo opened, on January 27, 2002, he told Fox News, “These are the worst of a very bad lot. They are very dangerous. They are devoted to killing millions of Americans, innocent Americans, if they can, and they are perfectly prepared to die in the effort.” And last July, on CNN, he said, “I think you need to have someplace to hold those individuals who have been captured during the global war on terror. I’m thinking of people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed There are hundreds of people like that, and if you closed Guantánamo, you’d have to find someplace else to put these folks.”
Given that around 80 prisoners have been released since Cheney made this last pronouncement, it’s clear that his talk of “hardcore” prisoners is a repeated lie, adjusted according to how many prisoners are actually held at Guantánamo.
In addition, Cheney’s unsubstantiated claim about the remaining prisoners ignores the fact that, as I explained at length in The Guantánamo Files, and have repeatedly described in articles (most recently here), the majority of the prisoners at Guantánamo were captured not by US forces, but by their Afghan and Pakistani allies, at a time when the US military was offering substantial bounty payments for “al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects.” Moreover, they have never been screened adequately to determine whether they should have been declared as “enemy combatants” not on capture (when they should have received Article 5 battlefield tribunals, according to the Geneva Conventions), not in the prisons in Afghanistan that were used to process them for Guantánamo (where the orders were that every Arab was to be sent to Cuba), and not in Guantánamo itself. The tribunals established to review the status of the prisoners in Guantánamo relied almost exclusively on woefully generic information, and on confessions obtained through the torture, coercion or bribery of other prisoners. As former insider Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham has eloquently explained, the entire process was designed not to provide justice, but to defend the administration’s blanket assertions that the prisoners were “enemy combatants.”
6) On the prisoners’ rights
Cheney continued, “Now, the question, if you’re going to close Guantánamo, what are you going to do with those prisoners? One suggestion is, well, we’ll bring them to the United States. Well, I don’t know very many congressmen, for example, who are eager to have 200 al-Qaeda terrorists deposited in their district. It’s a complex and difficult problem. If you bring them onshore into the United States, they automatically acquire certain legal rights and responsibilities that the government would then have, that they don’t as long as they’re at Guantánamo. And that’s an important consideration.
THE LIE: In this statement, Cheney’s lie, which reveals his disdain for the Supreme Court, is his claim that, as long as the prisoners are in Guantánamo, they don’t have “certain legal rights.” As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, the pretense that Guantánamo was beyond the reach of US law, and that the prisoners could be held without rights, was demolished in June 2004, when the highest court in the land ruled in Rasul v. Bush that Guantánamo was “territory over which the United States exercises exclusive jurisdiction and control,” and that, because the prisoners denied that they had “engaged in or plotted acts of aggression against this country,” and had “never been afforded access to any tribunal, much less charged with and convicted of wrongdoing,” they had habeas corpus rights; in other words, the right to challenge the basis of their detention before an impartial judge.
The administration then persuaded Congress to remove these rights in two appalling pieces of legislation the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 but the Supreme Court restored their habeas corpus rights in another landmark case in June 2008, Boumediene v. Bush, and made sure that Cheney could not persuade Congress to remove them again by ruling that this time their rights were constitutional.
The prisoners have therefore had “certain legal rights” since June 2004, although it is clear that Cheney still does not regard Supreme Court rulings as having any impact on the President’s whims as the Commander-in-Chief of a self-declared war without end.
7) On conditions at Guantánamo
Next, Cheney said, “These are not American citizens. They are not subject, nor do they have the same rights that an American citizen does vis-à-vis the government. But they are well treated.”
THE LIE: It is hard to conceive of a manner in which the prisoners at Guantánamo are “well treated.” A dedicated PR machine has attempted to make out that they are all coddled and well-fed, but the truth is that, unlike convicted criminals on the US mainland, who watch TV, have opportunities to socialize, receive family visits and have regular access to reading and writing materials, the prisoners in Guantánamo who have never been charged with a crime, let alone convicted are deprived of almost all “comfort items” to relieve the crushing monotony of their daily lives and the desperate uncertainty of their fate. They have, for example, never received a single visit from their loved ones, they are still hurled into isolation cells or beaten by armored response teams for the slightest infraction of the rules, and if they protest their seemingly endless imprisonment without charge or trial by embarking on hunger strikes, they are force-fed in the most brutal manner, even though force-feeding competent prisoners is illegal.
8) On the Military Commissions at Guantánamo
Cheney continued, “They also have the opportunity, and the process has just started now to be heard before a military commission with a judgment, fair and honest judgment made about their guilt or innocence, to be represented by counsel provided through that process.”
THE LIE: I have covered the Military Commissions in depth over the last year and a half, and at no point has it ever been demonstrated that the system dreamt up by Cheney and Addington in November 2001 is “fair and honest.” Every defense attorney appointed by the government has risked his or her career by openly criticizing the system, and several prosecutors have resigned in protest at what they regarded as a rigged system, the most significant being Col. Morris Davis, the former chief prosecutor, who complained of political interference, and Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, who complained that evidence vital to the defense was routinely withheld. Both stories were covered in detail in my article, “The Dark Heart of the Guantánamo Trials.”
Two prisoners who were juveniles when seized (Omar Khadr and Mohamed Jawad) have been put forward for trials, despite claims that the allegations against them are rigged, and several insignificant Afghan prisoners have also been charged. In addition, those regarded as particularly significant (the alleged 9/11 co-conspirators, for example) have been allowed to make a mockery of the system, and on the eve of the Presidential election, a man named Ali Hamza al-Bahlul was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for his association with al-Qaeda, even though he refused to mount a defense. In the rest of the world, that would be referred to as a show trial.
9) On the alleged recidivism of released prisoners
Cheney was asked about the danger of closing Guantánamo “too soon,” shortly after the following disturbing exchange took place:
Jonathan Karl: So when do you think we’ll be at a point where Guantánamo could be responsibly shut down?
Dick Cheney: Well, I think that would come with the end of the war on terror.
Jonathan Karl: When’s that going to be?
Dick Cheney: Well, nobody knows. Nobody can specify that.
Jonathan Karl: But basically it sounds like you’re saying Guantánamo Bay will be open indefinitely.
Cheney said, “Well, if you release people that shouldn’t have been released, and that’s happened in some cases already, you end up with them back on the battlefield. We’ve had, as I recall now and these are rough numbers, I’d want to check it but, say, approximately 30 of these folks who’ve been held in Guantánamo, been released, and ended up back on the battlefield again, and we’ve encountered them a second time around. They’ve either been killed or captured in further conflicts with our forces.”
THE LIE: The claim that 30 former prisoners “ended up back on the battlefield” is a staple of Pentagon propaganda, even though it has never been backed up with evidence. Instead, as the Seton Hall Law School noted in a report last December (PDF), the Pentagon regarded speaking out about Guantánamo as “returning to the battlefield” (as in the case of three Britons, Ruhal Ahmed, Asif Iqbal and Shafiq Rasul, who were involved in a film about their experiences, The Road to Guantánamo).
The Pentagon has also conveniently ignored the fact that at least six Taliban fighters were released because the US authorities had refused to consult with their Afghan allies. In 2004, officials in Hamid Karzai’s government blamed the US for the return of Taliban commanders to the battlefield, explaining that “neither the American military officials, nor the Kabul police, who briefly process the detainees when they are sent home, consult them about the detainees they free.”
The true number of prisoners who have “returned to the battlefield” is certainly less than the number quoted by the Pentagon and by Dick Cheney although it should also be noted that, even if it were correct, a recidivism rate of 6 percent is considerably lower than in any other US prison, and indicates, of course, that a large number of those released were not terrorists or militants in the first place.
10) On the reason for invading Iraq
Turning to Iraq, Jonathan Karl said, “You probably saw Karl Rove last week said that if the intelligence had been correct, we probably would not have gone to war,” and Cheney responded, “I disagree with that. I think the as I look at the intelligence with respect to Iraq, what they got wrong was that there weren’t any stockpiles. What we found in the after-action reports after the intelligence report was done and then various special groups went and looked at the intelligence and what its validity was, what they found was that Saddam Hussein still had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction. He had the technology, he had the people, he had the basic feedstocks. They also found that he had every intention of resuming production once the international sanctions were lifted.”
THE LIE: Brazen to the end, Cheney has clung to the WMD deception as though it had ever been anything other than an excuse for regime change following the illegal invasion of a sovereign country, drive by a deranged desire to gain geopolitical supremacy and establish an ill-defined facsimile of the American political and economic system in the heart of the Middle East.
No one credible agrees with Cheney’s assessment of Saddam Hussein’s weapons capabilities or his intentions and in addition, of course, Cheney has a colorful and reprehensible record of bullying the intelligence agencies into finding reasons to invade Iraq, and promoting the fiction that Saddam Hussein was trying to obtain “yellowcake” uranium ore from Niger.
Moreover, two of Cheney’s particular enthusiasms the torture of prisoners, and the invasion of Iraq came together when Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, the head of the Khaldan military training camp in Afghanistan (which had little connection with al-Qaeda) was captured and sent to Egypt to be tortured, where he made a false confession that Saddam Hussein had offered to train two al-Qaeda operatives in the use of chemical and biological weapons. Al-Libi later recanted his confession, but not until Secretary of State Colin Powell to his eternal shame has used the story in February 2003 in an attempt to persuade the UN to support the invasion of Iraq.
This, of course, is disturbing enough, but as David Rose explained in an article in Vanity Fair that coincided with Cheney’s recent ABC News interview, al-Libi was not the only torture victim spouting nonsense about Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
According to two senior intelligence analysts, Abu Zubaydah, the facilitator for the Khaldan camp, who was also subjected to torture including waterboarding also made a number of false confessions about connections between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, beyond one ludicrous claim which was subsequently leaked by the administration: that Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi were working with Saddam Hussein to destabilize the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq. One of the analysts, who worked at the Pentagon, explained, “The intelligence community was lapping this up, and so was the administration, obviously. Abu Zubaydah was saying Iraq and al-Qaeda had an operational relationship. It was everything the administration hoped it would be.”
However, none of the analysts knew that these confessions had been obtained through torture. The Pentagon analyst told David Rose, “As soon as I learned that the reports had come from torture, once my anger had subsided I understood the damage it had done. I was so angry, knowing that the higher-ups in the administration knew he was tortured, and that the information he was giving up was tainted by the torture, and that it became one reason to attack Iraq.” He added, “It seems to me they were using torture to achieve a political objective.”
This is the end, for now, of my tour through the dark, unjust and counterproductive world fashioned by Dick Cheney and his colleagues and close advisers in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, but I hope as disturbing rumors begin to swirl that it serves to confirm how a Presidential pardon for the Vice President would, effectively, be an endorsement for some of the cruellest manifestations of unfettered executive power and disdain for the rule of law that the United States has ever experienced.