Share

Torture Used to Link Saddam With 9/11

by: Marjorie Cohn, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo
Soldiers wheel detainee to interogation room at Guantanamo. (Photo: Marc Serota / Reuters Pictures)

    When I testified last year before the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties about Bush interrogation policies, Congressman Trent Franks (R-Arizona) stated that former CIA Director Michael Hayden had confirmed that the Bush administration only waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashirit for one minute each. I told Franks that I didn't believe that. Sure enough, one of the newly released torture memos reveals that Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times and Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times. One of Stephen Bradbury's 2005 memos asserted that "enhanced techniques" on Zubaydah yielded the identification of Mohammed and an alleged radioactive bomb plot by Jose Padilla. But FBI supervisory special agent Ali Soufan, who interrogated Zubaydah from March to June 2002, wrote in The New York Times that Zubaydah produced that information under traditional interrogation methods, before the harsh tec hniques were ever used.

    Why, then, the relentless waterboarding of these two men? It turns out that high Bush officials put heavy pressure on Pentagon interrogators to get Mohammed and Zubaydah to reveal a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 hijackers, in order to justify Bush's illegal and unnecessary invasion of Iraq in 2003. That link was never established.

    President Obama released the four memos in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the ACLU. They describe unimaginably brutal techniques and provide "legal" justification for clearly illegal acts of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. In the face of monumental pressure from the CIA to keep them secret, Obama demonstrated great courage in deciding to make the grotesque memos public. At the same time, however, in an attempt to pacify the intelligence establishment, Obama said, "it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution."

    In startlingly clinical and dispassionate terms, the authors of the newly released torture memos describe and then rationalize why the devastating techniques the CIA sought to employ on human beings do not violate the Torture Statute (18 U.S.C. sec. 2340).

    The memos justify 10 techniques, including banging heads into walls 30 times in a row, prolonged nudity, repeated slapping, dietary manipulation, and dousing with cold water as low as 41 degrees. They allow shackling in a standing position for 180 hours, sleep deprivation for 11 days, confinement of people in small dark boxes with insects for hours, and waterboarding to create the perception they are drowning. Moreover, the memos permit many of these techniques to be used in combination for a 30-day period. They find that none of these techniques constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

    Waterboarding, admittedly the most serious of the methods, is designed, according to Jay Bybee, to induce the perception of "suffocation and incipient panic, i.e. the perception of drowning." But although Bybee finds that "the use of the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death," he accepts the CIA's claim that it does "not anticipate that any prolonged mental harm would result from the use of the waterboard." One of Bradbury's memos requires that a physician be on duty during waterboarding to perform a tracheotomy in case the victim doesn't recover after being returned to an upright position.

    As psychologist Jeffrey Kaye points out, the CIA and the Justice Department "ignored a wealth of other published information" that indicates dissociative symptoms, changes greater than those in patients undergoing heart surgery, and drops in testosterone to castration levels after acute stress associated with techniques that the memos sanction.

    The Torture Statute punishes conduct, or conspiracy to engage in conduct, specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering. "Severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from either the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering, or from the threat of imminent death.

    Bybee asserts that "if a defendant acts with the good faith belief that his actions will not cause such suffering, he has not acted with specific intent." He makes the novel claim that the presence of personnel with medical training who can stop the interrogation if medically necessary "indicates that it is not your intent to cause severe physical pain."

    Now a federal judge with a lifetime appointment, Bybee concludes that waterboarding does not constitute torture under the Torture Statute. However, he writes, "we cannot predict with confidence whether a court would agree with this conclusion."

    Bybee's memo explains why the 10 techniques could be used on Abu Zubaydah, who was considered to be a top al-Qaeda operative. "Zubaydah does not have any pre-existing mental conditions or problems that would make him likely to suffer prolonged mental harm from [the CIA's] proposed interrogation methods," the CIA told Bybee. But Zubaydah was a low-ranking al-Qaeda operative, according to leading FBI counterterrorism expert Dan Coleman, who advised a top FBI official, "This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality." This was reported by Ron Suskind in his book, "The One Percent Doctrine."

    The CIA's request to confine Zubaydah in a cramped box with an insect was granted by Bybee, who told the CIA it could place a harmless insect in the box and tell Zubaydah that it will sting him but it won't kill him. Even though the CIA knew that Zubaydah had an irrational fear of insects, Bybee found there would be no threat of severe physical pain or suffering if it followed this procedure.

    Obama's intent to immunize those who violated our laws banning torture and cruel treatment violates the president's constitutional duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

    US law prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and requires that those who subject people to such treatment be prosecuted. The Convention against Torture compels us to refer all torture cases for prosecution or extradite the suspect to a country that will undertake a criminal investigation.

    Obama has made a political calculation to seek amnesty for the CIA torturers. However, good-faith reliance on superior orders was rejected as a defense at Nuremberg and in Lieutenant Calley's Vietnam-era trial for the My Lai Massacre. The Torture Convention provides unequivocally, "An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification for torture."

    There is evidence that the CIA was using the illegal techniques as early as April 2002, three to four months before the August memo was written. That would eliminate "good-faith" reliance on Justice Department advice as a "defense" to prosecution.

    The Senate Intelligence Committee revealed that Condoleezza Rice approved waterboarding on July 17, 2002, "subject to a determination of legality by the OLC." She got it two weeks later from Bybee and John Yoo. Rice, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales and George Tenet reassured the CIA in spring 2003 that the abusive methods were legal.

    Obama told The Associated Press's Jennifer Loven in the Oval Office: "With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws, and I don't want to prejudge that." If Holder continues to carry out Obama's political agenda by resisting investigations and prosecution, Congress can, and should, authorize the appointment of a special independent prosecutor to do what the law requires.

    The president must fulfill his constitutional duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. Obama said that "nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past." He is wrong. There is more to gain from upholding the rule of law. It will make future leaders think twice before they authorize the cruel, illegal treatment of other human beings.

    -------

    Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and president of the National Lawyers Guild. She is author of "Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law" and co-author of the new book, "Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent." Her articles are archived at www.marjoriecohn.com.

  

»


Marjorie Cohn is president of the National Lawyers Guild and a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law. She is the author of "Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law" and co-author of "Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent." Her anthology, "The United States of Torture: America's Past and Present Policy of Interrogation and Abuse," will be published next year by NYU Press. See www.marjoriecohn.com.

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

Every time there are

Every time there are misdeeds by administrations, whether by Johnson or Nixon or Reagan or Bush the perpetrators are allowed to slip back into private life and wait for the next opportunity to get back into a position of political power. Only by prosecuting people like Rumsfeld and Gonzales and Rove to the full extent of the law, do we as a nation end this cycle and stop acting like a banana republic ruled solely for the benefit of the corporations.

Imagine the outrage if one

Imagine the outrage if one of our soldiers was captured and those holding him issued the following statement: "He was not tortured, only waterboarded. When he stopped breathing our doctors performed an emergency tracheotomy to save his life."

"Waterboarding" is something

"Waterboarding" is something you do at the beach. When will the media start calling it what it is, controlled drowning?

Change track a moment.

Change track a moment. Imagine every nerve in your body on fire, 24/7 for days- that is "stress positions". Imagine the song you hate worst, loud base driving you crazy, reaching for the knob to turn it off. Now picture having that blasted at you at the sound level of a jet engine, while in a bright light, 24 hours a day 7 days a week, without end, unable to sleep, think, or drown out the light or sound. That is extreme interrogation technique at work. What is your worst fear or phobia, what terrifies you in your dreams, waking you in the middle of the night. Imagine your captor knowing that fear, and using it against you. Waterboarding is NOT the only torture. Welcome to Guantanamo.

Where does everyone go to

Where does everyone go to find the information that created those we see? Looking for truthful answers.

So many jobs for so many

So many jobs for so many Special Prosecutors. Still right up there at the top of the list is the false-flag operation on 9-11. There is plenty of evidence, both circumstantial and confirmed, to warrant a REAL investigation and subsequent prosecution for mass murder, which resulted in even more horrific mass murder in the Middle East. Time is running out rapidly for this country, and the world, as the Bankers make off with the last scraps of the economy, and weaponized viruses may provide the tipping point into martial law.

I think that one of the

I think that one of the reasons that many on the right (Cheney, Limbaugh, Bolton, Rove, O'Reilly, Gingrich, Scarborough, Bennett, Hannity, Wolfowitz, etc.) are so bullish on torture and war is that they never served (see chicken hawks) and are pretty sure that none of their children will ever serve. They don't have to worry about the fallout of American torture and the effect it may have on captured America troops. They also have a perverse view of caring for American soldiers coming back from war with missing limbs or PTSD. For the most part , they support soldiers in the theater,(that assertion can be debated), but when they return, the support is withheld (see funding for injured troops returning from Iraq and the horrible conditions at V.A. hospitals). It is very similar to their view on abortion. They, for the most part, are anti-abortion. However, when the child enters the world and its mother cannot support him/her they are the first to rail against social programs like welfare, food stamps, and family planning. I think the word is hypocrite. Most of their arguments don't hold any logical water and are usually backed by displaced emotion and anger. I would venture to say that most of them are cowards and bullies on their school grounds when growing up. Shame on them!! Call out the special prosecutor and get the show on the road.

"When I testified last year

"When I testified last year before the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties about Bush interrogation policies, Congressman Trent Franks (R-Arizona) stated that former CIA Director Michael Hayden had confirmed that the Bush administration only waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashirit for one minute each. I told Franks that I didn't believe that. Sure enough, one of the newly released torture memos reveals that Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times and Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times." My question is this: why is Michael Hayden not held in contempt of Congress for lying about these one minute suffocation-drowning sessions? Why has there been no followup to this fib? Furthermore, why indeed is "waterboarding" mislabeled with phrases like "simulated drowning," and not named for exactly what it is and what it does: cause drowning and thereby suffocates its recipient. Isn't it simply t0rure by suffocation? I agree with 19:50. It's about affecting the breathing process with a secondary agent. Lastly, I'd be curious to know whether Michael Hayden spoke under oath that day.

"They allow shackling in a

"They allow shackling in a standing position for 180 hours, sleep deprivation for 11 days, confinement of people in small dark boxes with insects for hours, and waterboarding to create the perception they are drowning," Marjorie, you should be more careful with your use of language. They did not "perceive" they were drowning. A perception of drowning would be watching someone else drown. This was drowning, pure and simple. Call a spade a spade, please. Talking like this is a great disservice to the victims. Thanks for listening.

Not pursuing crimes

Not pursuing crimes committed by the previous administration is beginning to make me feel dirty again about how our country is doing business. We CANNOT allow treasonous acts to be treated as if they are OK (e.g., torturing people to justify a war that the promoters of that war and their children will never risk life or limb for.) Only "little people" (like Lynddie England) pay for things in this country, whether it is for crimes or taxes or for an economic meltdown. "Important people" get bailed out and are given a hand up to their next fabulous high paid job. If we don't prosecute those who set policy and then lie about it and blame low level soldiers for being bad apples we should release Lynddie and others at her level immediately. Otherwise we too shall deserve to be called hypocrites. But this general lack of accountability is making me feel sick. I think we should pursue charges wherever they are justified. We need to clean our house. We need to have a spine. Heleni

Should the crimes of

Should the crimes of treason, by the Bush/Chaney Administration, be overlooked, then these crimes of high treason will be repeated in future administrations. The Allies conducted the Nürenberg Trials (in 1945 to 1949) for several reasons: A) To make aware that these crimes were actually committed, B) To examine HOW these crimes were able to be committed, C) Who committed these crimes and D) To punish the criminals. Should the guilty not be punished, then, their Criminal Acts would be absolved and could easily be repeated. There would not be any justice. “The true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government.” Should the Bush/Chaney Administration (alleged) criminals not be prosecuted, not be brought to trial and not found guilty, then, like the Ronald Reagan Republican group, they will be glorified, deified and praised. With ALL the evidence available: Eyewitnesses, Documents, Dead Bodies, Remnants of Death Camps, Newsreel clips, piles of clothes, piles of shoes, piles of hair, piles of eyeglasses, piles of gold teeth –COLD HARD EVIDENCE-, there are Holocaust Deniers being celebrated, glorified and believed. So, too, these (alleged) criminals will be praised and glorified for future generations. We will have not have learned from history –and the American society will repeat this debacle.

The more President Obama

The more President Obama seeks to avoid angering the people, the more people are going to get angry. As so many have pointed out, in this forum and others, we are supposed to be a law-abiding nation, and sweeping Bush & Co.'s crimes under the rug does not come under this description of America...quite the contrary! Imagine what sort of example this is to the rest of the world!

It surprises me that the

It surprises me that the commentators have not keyed in on the most startling new development in this story. If it can be shown conclusively that torture was used as a means to effect a political end - the invasion of Iraq - that is most assuredly an egregious abuse of the command structure and the perpetrators - most likely Cheney - should be tried and imprisoned.

If, as Cheney asserts,

If, as Cheney asserts, torture is acceptable, why don't we waterboard HIM to find out once and for all if despite prior knowledge he actually did (as some allege) contrive to allow 9/11 to take place in order to justify the "war of terror" - Oh Sorry! a Freudian slip, I meant the "war on terror!" Why did he refer to the oil reserves in Iraq as "the great prize"? But of course, the Iraq war was not about oil because Bush, Cheney and Blair told us it was not and they wouldn't lie would they???