Frontline: Examing the Paper Trail

Below is just a rough outline of what you can access at the Frontline link.

I published in the hopes that you will dig deeply into this troubling issue.

Sept. 16, 2001 Vice President Cheney says U.S. will use "any means at our disposal" in war on terror

In an interview on NBC's Meet the Press, the vice president says that in its response to 9/11, the government would need to "work through, sort of, the dark side." He continues: "We've got to spend time in the shadows in the intelligence world. A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies, if we're going to be successful. That's the world these folks operate in, and so it's going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective."

A chronology of the torture memos, Defense Department investigations into prisoner abuse, human rights reports and more.

Chronology: The New Rules of War

The evolution of the Bush administration's bold legal framework and aggressive interrogation policies for prosecuting the war on terror -- and how it links to the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and beyond.

The Investigations

The Pentagon says it has conducted at least 12 official investigations into prisoner abuse at DoD facilities in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. What have we learned so far? Here is a roundup of the investigations that have gained the most attention due to their shocking findings.

Interrogation Rules of Engagement

This chart hung at Abu Ghraib during the fall of 2003 -- the period of the notorious abuses there. It is a graphic depicting Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez's authorized interrogation approaches. According to the Fay-Jones report, which looked at military intelligence activities at Abu Ghraib, the chart misinterpreted Sanchez's memo and may have contributed to abuses during interrogations. "What was particularly confusing," the investigators wrote, "was that nowhere on the chart did it mention a number of techniques that were in use at the time: removal of clothing, forced grooming, hooding, and yelling, loud music and light control. Given the detail otherwise noted ... the failure to list some techniques left a question of whether they were authorized for use without approval." One anonymous source described the confusion to FRONTLINE, explaining, "There was a posted list of extended measures for interrogations that even said 'by commanding general approval,' which is Gen. Sanchez. And then I would hear about them being used, so I assumed they were being approved."

E-mail From Cpt. William Ponce

This e-mail was sent in August 2003 by a Military Intelligence (MI) captain serving in Iraq. It is notable because it shows the confusion over Geneva Conventions on the ground in Iraq: Cpt. Ponce distinguishes between "lawful combatants" protected by the Geneva Conventions and unlawful combatants, but prisoners in Iraq have always been covered under Geneva. He asks the e-mail's recipients to provide an "interrogation techniques 'wish list'" and reminds them: "The gloves are coming off gentlemen regarding these detainees…"

Government Documents on Torture

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has collected all the documents it has received under the Freedom of Information Act on this page. A lawsuit against Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other military leaders has yielded more than 77,000 pages of documents. Of particular note are the e-mails (here and here) sent by FBI agents disturbed by what they saw at Guantanamo. On Sept. 29, 2005, a federal judge ordered the release of more photos and videos of prison abuse at Abu Ghraib. Check back on this page for updates.

The Center for Constitutional Rights

The Center for Constitutional Rights, whose president is human rights attorney Michael Ratner, has a number of reports and other information about the situation for Guantanamo detainees, including: The Tipton Report, which details the story of three British detainees released from Guantanamo after the British government found evidence of their innocence; a collection of detainees' habeas corpus petitions; and extended briefs on Rasul v. Bush, a case brought by CCR in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled detainees have the right to challenge their detention in federal court.


* Related Links

• Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, Gen. Geoffrey Miller, and Col. Thomas Pappas declined FRONTLINE's request to be interviewed for "The Torture Question." However, they have testified before several government commissions, and their testimony is available to the public:

• Col. Thomas Pappas' Testimony for the Taguba investigation
  Although his name is blacked out here, this is the testimony of Col. Thomas Pappas, commander of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade. He said when detainee abuse was brought to his attention, he took immediate action. He also told investigators, "My interrogators are well advised about the Geneva Conventions and what they can and cannot do with regard to the treatment of detainees." (Feb. 9, 2004; Note: This is a pdf file; Adobe Acrobat required)

• Gen. Geoffrey Miller's Testimony for the Fay-Jones investigation
  The sworn statements to investigators of Gen. Miller, commander of Joint Task Force GTMO, can be found on pg. 28-29 and 34-35 of this document. Miller described his visit to assess prison facilities in Iraq and his recommendations to improve intelligence collection. He said he recommended using military dogs for command and control issues, but never in interrogations. (June 19, 2004; Note: This is a pdf file; Adobe Acrobat required.)

• Gen. Ricardo Sanchez's Testimony Before Senate Hearing on Iraq Prison Abuse
  In this hearing transcript, Gen. Sanchez, commander of the multinational force in Iraq, told the Senate that all the interrogation policies he issued "reiterated the application of the Geneva Conventions and required that all interrogations be conducted in a lawful and humane manner, with command oversight." He said he initiated an investigation as soon as he found out about the allegations of abuse at Abu Ghraib. [Note: Gen. Miller also testified before this panel.] (May 19, 2004)

NEW!! PUBLIC DIPLOMACY COURSE FOR US studos

A return to the 13th century expressed by the current fight in Congress over BuZh appointments

Midterm exam

the Background:

Torture to come for opponents
to the unitary executive??

As the Bush administration (that is - as the imperial crown is passed to HiLIARy, there are no shortage of new outrages

Assume the worst case scenario: It's only gonna get worse!

While there is much that can be learned, the latest news is not merely a snub to Democrats, but a poke in the eye to all of us, but assume we can still see straight.

Rhetorical question of the day: Where do Bush and Cheney find all these guys, anyway?? I mean besides the Federalist Society? Just where to the psychopaths sign on? Surely not linkedin. This guy must have enjoyed quite a few hefty cocktails with David Addington in the past couple of years!! The dogs of war seem to be have raided the kennel for rabid rottweillers one too many times. So, okay, where is the leash?

And here is YOUR quiz, studos ...

Study the article below carefully and then answer the following questions

as best you can .. don't think too hard, it is certainly NOT expected that you would or could.

Rhetorical question No. 2: Why does CONgress continually put up with these law breakers??

Rhetorical question No. 3: When does Bush NOT thumb his nose at everyone, particularly those honest Congressional members who take their oath seriously.

Rhetorical question No. 4 - Why is Mukasey "studying" waterboarding's legality. THE LAWS ARE ON THE BOOKS! for sock's sake!! What spin can he possiblity give it?

Rhetorical question No.5 - Why can the democrats NOT see that they will lose the elections in 2008 because they do NOT impeach??

Take that back - No. 5 is not a rhetorical question, it is a bonus question. See if you can answer that.

For a full 10 points, answer this question and avoid the written essay question on the final .. WHAT DAMNED GOOD IS THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ANYWAY? What is the solution?? All alternatives should be fully outlined, and no options left off. Please include statistical evidence of the likelihood of such options of being introduced. You may use a spreadsheet approach with such column headers as "threats" "opportunities" "special prosecutors". You may think of this in terms of running a business - since that is what the BuZh Administration does all day long, a business run by cruel and inhumane managers as even Krupps would have trouble staying in business with these "business" policies.

You will fail to find anything wrong in this last ten pointer, that is if you don't come up with anything wrong, don't worry: there are many nice politicized jobs in the DoJ and thus you won't be out anything if you fail to answer. They are pros on that over there, you'll find a willing and able mentor with no problem at all.

I will be conducting a seminar next term, Post Cheney America 501, to which all students may apply. Some topics to be included are:

• Wiretapping basics
• Design for living: How to make basic decency "bipartisan"
  
• How to get the most out of your blackberry and the RNC
  
• Waterboarding finesse
• Attire for torturers
• Disposable US troops ieft to languish in prisons while being tortured
• How to avoid the advice of a JAG and other lunchtime behaviour
• Getting along with your telecom supervisor
• Accounting for distaste (There is no accounting for taste, but there is certainly something to be counted when you have a distaste for a fascistic government. This is such a vast area, it may be turned into another seminar at a later date.)
• War crimes immunity, how to avoid ratting on your co conspirators
• Stonewalling for pros
• Off the table manners
  
• How to funnel drug money so that the US treasury can be propped up
• Think tanks, pro and con
• The new linguistics - words to outlaw such as whistleblower, oversight, ethis committee, human rights ..
  
• Shortlisting - how to pick your new Homeland allies
• The Karl Rove legacy - how to play dirty and make it look good to campaign donors
• Dick Cheney - Emperor or Imperial Majesty? Fool proof techniques from The Master himself.
• Picking - both your speaking venues and cherry picking your intel
• History's tyrants - role models to emulate, usuable techniques
  
• Project Mockingbird: After the infotaiment mind melt, how to write and avoid looking at the Supreme Law of the land.
• Government accounting, or nonaccounting. How to keep 85% of the budget ot maintain a dieing military in 2009
• Successful, proven tecniques for the use of the carrot and the stick with US allies.
• Getting the best from your lobbyist - how to ensure that post Congressional service job
• Thought police; policy implications and employment recruitment
• Working with (defense department) robotics, a look at the new feel good relationship

Good students will be recommended for foreign study at the discretion of the instructor. You may be rewarded by a trip to Dubai or to Paraguay.

It is not recommended you keep a journal for this course. It will not be reviewed by the instructor. If I don't have the means to know, I cannot say I knew.

Justice Nomination Seen as Snub to Democrats

Michael Temchine for The New York Times

Senate Democrats have contested repeated attempts to appoint Steven G. Bradbury to a senior Justice Department post.

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department lawyer who wrote a series of classified legal opinions in 2005 authorizing harsh C.I.A. interrogation techniques was renominated by the White House on Wednesday to a senior department post, a move that was seen as a snub to Senate Democrats who have long opposed his appointment.

The lawyer, Steven G. Bradbury, who has run the department’s Office of Legal Counsel without Senate confirmation for more than two years, has been repeatedly nominated to the job of assistant attorney general for legal counsel.

But the earlier nominations stalled in the Senate because of a dispute with the Justice Department over its failure to provide Congress with copies of legal opinions on a variety of terrorism issues. Under Senate rules that place a time limit on nominations, Mr. Bradbury’s earlier nominations expired.

Late last year, Democrats urged the White House to withdraw Mr. Bradbury’s name once and for all and find a new candidate for the post after it was disclosed in news reports in October that he was the author of classified memorandums that gave approval to harsh interrogation techniques, including head slapping, exposure to cold and simulated drowning, even when used in combination.

Mr. Bradbury’s memorandums were described by Democrats as an effort by the Bush administration to circumvent laws prohibiting torture and to undermine a public legal opinion issued by the Justice Department in 2004 that declared torture to be “abhorrent.”

The department and the White House have insisted that there are no contradictions between Mr. Bradbury’s legal opinions, which are still secret, and laws and rules governing interrogation techniques. A department spokesman, Peter A. Carr, said Wednesday that the department remained eager to see Mr. Bradbury confirmed.

“Steve Bradbury is a dedicated public servant and a superb lawyer, who has led with distinction the department’s Office of Legal Counsel,” Mr. Carr said. “He has proven invaluable to the department, and we will continue to work with the Senate to get him confirmed.”

Joe Shoemaker, a spokesman for Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said that by putting Mr. Bradbury’s name forward again as a nominee, “the president has thumbed his nose at Congress and chosen an individual who has been involved in authorizing some of the most controversial policies of this administration.”

Mr. Durbin led the previous efforts to reject Mr. Bradbury’s nomination and sits on the Judiciary Committee, which would have to approve the nomination.

Mr. Bradbury’s new nomination is almost certain to be a focus of questions next week when Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey is scheduled to appear before the Judiciary Committee for his first public hearing since his confirmation to the job in November.

Mr. Mukasey has suggested that he is a firm supporter of the Bush administration’s tough anti-terrorism policies, and his nomination was nearly derailed over criticism of his refusal to condemn as torture the interrogation practice known as waterboarding. He has since said he is studying its legality.

Mr. Durbin and the nine other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee joined in a letter on Wednesday asking Mr. Mukasey to clarify his views on waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques. The letter noted there had been “ample time for you to study this issue and reach a conclusion” and asked him to respond to the question: “Is the use of waterboarding as an interrogation technique illegal under U.S. law, including terrorism obligations?”

Also Wednesday, Vice President Dick Cheney offered a broad and impassioned defense of the administration’s antiterrorism efforts as he urged Congress to act quickly in reauthorizing broad wiretapping powers for the National Security Agency and in giving broad immunity to phone companies involved in the wiretaps.

The vice president, who was closely involved in the N.S.A.’s program of eavesdropping without warrants from its inception weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, depicted the vote in the Senate as a matter of national security.

“It is a fact,” Mr. Cheney told a friendly audience at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group in Washington, “that the danger to our country remains very real, and that the terrorists are still determined to hit us.” (video is on the blog, but it will make you barf if you have any conscience.)

Democrats concede that they probably lack the votes to stop a White House-backed plan to give immunity to phone carriers that assisted in the N.S.A. program, and they urged President Bush anew on Wednesday to agree to a one-month extension in the law to allow time for a full debate.