Secretary Gates: U.S. 'torture memos' could not be kept secret

[one...two...tree 2,762]

CAMP LEJEUNE, North Carolina (AFP) – US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Thursday it would have been "unrealistic" to keep secret sensitive memos on harsh interrogations as their eventual disclosure was "inevitable."

In his first public comments on the controversy, Gates indicated he supported the release of the Bush-era memos, despite concerns about protecting CIA officers from prosecution and a possible backlash against US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Gates said a combination of congressional investigations and pending lawsuits meant it would be virtually impossible to keep the information in the memos secret.

"I think pretending that we could hold all of this, and keep it all a secret, even if we wanted to, I think was pretty unrealistic. So we'll just have to deal with it," he told reporters.

"There is a certain inevitability I believe that much of this will eventually come out and much has already come out," he said during a visit to the Camp Lejeune military base in North Carolina.

The Pentagon chief and former CIA director described the release of the documents as a difficult decision.

"All of us wrestled with it for quite some time," he said.

Gates said his top concern was ensuring CIA officers who he said were following orders would not be prosecuted for carrying out the harsh interrogations during former president George W. Bush's administration.

"I felt very strongly the importance that they be protected and against all different kinds of possible prosecutions," he said.

President Barack Obama has said CIA officers involved in interrogations should not be prosecuted as they had received legal guidance from their superiors.

Gates served as director of the Central Intelligence Agency under ex-president George H.W. Bush.

The four partially blacked out memos released last week blew the lid on harsh CIA terror interrogations approved by the previous administration, including the use of insects, simulated drowning and sleep deprivation.

The graphic memos offered a stunning glimpse inside the covert interrogation program introduced after the September 11 attacks in 2001, which critics say equated to torture, and Obama said undermined America's moral authority.

The documents were written by Bush administration legal officials and argued that a long list of coercive techniques did not equal torture as they did not amount to the inflicting severe mental or physical pain.

Obama has faced criticism from both ends of the political spectrum over the issue, with rights groups demanding prompt prosecution of former Bush administration officials and conservatives charging the move had endangered national security.

Gates also said the release of the memos made him "quite concerned about the potential backlash in the Middle East and in the theaters where we are involved in conflict, and that it might have a negative impact on our troops."

Asked if he backed the release of the memos, Gates said: "My own view was that I regarded the information about a lot of these things coming out as inevitable, and therefore how do we try and manage it in the best possible way."

Gates spoke to reporters while visiting the Camp Lejeune base where US Marines are preparing to deploy to Afghanistan in the next few weeks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090423/ts_al..._20090423213433

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Gates said his top concern was ensuring CIA officers who he said were following orders would not be prosecuted for carrying out the harsh interrogations during former president George W. Bush's administration.

"I felt very strongly the importance that they be protected and against all different kinds of possible prosecutions," he said.

Unless, of course, Congress wants to resurrect the Church Commission, and castrate our intelligence community again.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Pelosi: I didn't know about waterboarding

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pushing back on GOP charges that she knew about waterboarding for years and did nothing.

Pelosi says she was briefed by Bush administration officials on the legal justification for using waterboarding — but that they never followed through on promises to inform her when they actually began using "enhanced" interrogation techniques

"In that or any other briefing…we were not, and I repeat, we're not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used. What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel ... opinions that they could be used," she told reporters today.

Earlier, House Minority Leader John Boehner (D-Ohio) criticized Pelosi and other Democratic leaders for backing probes into the use of waterboarding — after failing to raise objections during briefings on its potential use.

"Well, yesterday I saw a partial list of the number of members of the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, who were briefed on these interrogation methods and not a word was raised at the time, not one word," Boehner told reporters at his weekly news availability.

"And I think you're going to hear more and more about the bigger picture here, that what — the war on terror after 9/11 was done in a bipartisan basis on lots of fronts. And that bigger story will be coming out," he added.

Pelosi says members who receive classified intelligence briefings are powerless to act on them — or even discuss them with staff.

As a consequence, some members simply skip the meetings, so they aren't "hamstrung" by confidentiality requirements.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/...erboarding.html

[Heracles 417]

Every other country around the world doesn't seem to have a problem with keeping it secret. Almost a given actually. I do love the attitude that by releasing this sort of information it would give the world more respect for America. Morons.

What part of intelligence service do liberal yanks fail to understand. So no scanning of phone calls and no interrogation. Maybe harsh liberal language will work against these guys. Oh wait, you cannot interrogate them. Way to make an almost impossible job even harder. Liberal Yanks really are dumb.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Constellation

[Nagishkaw 510]

Gates is a chopf##k.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

To be honest I'm not sure I understand the point of releasing the documents, unless its a pretext to prosecution.

[NickD 203]

From http://blogs.georgetown.edu/?id=31302

"Bradbury on Waterboarding: It doesn't last long enough to be torture Feb-16-08 12:58 pm

Last Thursday, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Steven Bradbury testified before House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. In the course of the hearing, Bradbury defensed the legality of waterboarding. I think our Georgetown colleague, Marty Lederman, has the best take on this:

Rep. Nadler asked Bradbury how OLC could possibly have concluded that waterboarding is not torture -- After all, isn't the whole point of the technique to induce severe physical pain and/or suffering so as to compel recalcitrant detainees to talk? Doesn't its reported effectiveness -- most victims cannot withstand more than 30 seconds of it -- speak for itself? Of course it's designed to inflict severe physical suffering. And if it does so, as Bradbury concedes, it's prohibited torture, no matter what the justification might be.

Bradbury did not respond directly to Nadler's question (although later he tipped his hand as to why he has concluded that the CIA waterboarding is not torture -- see below). Instead, Bradbury tried to reassure Nadler, and later Representative Franks, that the CIA's waterboarding was not as bad as press reports would have it -- that our variant of the technique is materially distinct from the sort of water torture used by (i) the Spanish Inquisition; (ii) U.S. forces in the Philippines at the turn of the 20th Century; and (iii) the Japanese in World War II. In those earlier historical examples, there was a "forced consumption of a mass amount of water," and occasionally the interrogators would stand or jump on the stomach of the victim, sometimes leading to "blood coming of the victim's mouth." Which apparently crosses the line. Thankfully, we do not do such terrible things.

Lederman continues:

Bradbury later confirmed (see

the video

at 36:20-37:00) what I've often speculated here: OLC's view is that a technique is not torture if, "subject to strict safeguards, limitations and conditions, [it] does not involve sever physical pain or severe physical suffering -- and severe physical suffering, we said on our December 2004 Opinion, has to take account of both the intensity of the discomfort or distress involved, and the duration, and something can be quite distressing or comfortable, even frightening, [but] if it doesn't involve severe physical pain, and it doesn't last very long, it may not constitute severe physical suffering. That would be the analysis."

Let's be very clear: This so-called "analysis" is at the very core of the OLC justification for waterboarding, and possibly several other components of the CIA program, as well. And it is flatly, 100% wrong, and indefensible, for

reasons I have discussed at length

. The fact that Judge Mukasey continues to abide by it is a scandal. And the fact that Congress has not said a word about this legal linchpin of the OLC/CIA regime is even worse.

Waterboarding, even the CIA version, entails excruciating and intense physical suffering. That's why they use it.

Lederman is correct. And I continue to be profoundly troubled that arguments could be made that the waterboarding experience would not be considered severe simply because it does not necessarily last more than seconds. Give the intensity of the expereince-- witnessed by the fact that victims cannot "last" more than seconds-- it is clearly severe physical suffering. Moreover, lest we forget under its legal definition, torture means not just severe physical pain and suffering, but also mental pain and suffering. If I am waterboarded and only last 15 second,s I have experienced severe physical suffering for those 15 seconds, But I have also experienced several mental suffering. And who knows how long that mental suffering persists-- especially because of the possibility that they will waterboard me again.

Tags: torture human rights"

Heard Steven Bradbury on the radio yesterday, a very forceful speaker, but would have preferred if he gave a demonstration of this technique with him as the victim. He said it only lasted two seconds, so making a person experienced this 183 times is not as bad as it sounds.

Really don't know what's going on here, but when you meet a guy doing a naughty thing, you shoot him, hell, he is shooting at you, only those in doubt are taken as prisoner.

Laura Bush made the comment that she really got spoiled living in the White House with servants waiting on her hand and foot, can only assume all those leaders making those nasty rules had the same comfort. Hell, should of sent those guys out in the field, didn't even have air conditioning, eaten alive by insects, can't sleep at night, was rather uncomfortable.

[Heracles 417]

To be honest I'm not sure I understand the point of releasing the documents, unless its a pretext to prosecution.

You need to understand the liberal yank mindset. The country is in financial ruins but switch on or to any liberal yank tv / radio / blog etc and they are still beating on about rights and this sort of rubbish. I've never ever heard of such rubbish being so important.

In the states, those classified as liberals are obsessed with rights issues and extremely paranoid with any government activity. Whereas in Australia and other places I have lived, people are more concerned about their privacy in the private sector and do not have an issue with their government doing their job; as long as the information is not relayed to others of course.

For example, I noticed in our local paper that you can find a teachers (government workers) salary, using their actual name, because it is available under the "freedom of information act". Something that is absolutely confidential and illegal in Australia.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Constellation

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I find that all the legal twisting arguments about what constitutes torture are pretty distasteful to be honest - and not far removed from the sort of wrangling that went on when Clinton was claiming that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman", when it was suggested that the term "sexual relations" only applied to intercourse.

[Heracles 417]

...

The million dollar question is why was this even released. I have never ever heard of any other nation publishing their interrogation techniques or anything their CIA equivalent does actually. Whereas here they are treated like every other government department. You guys ever hear of what ASIO in Australia or MI6 does in the UK.

Our techniques when compared to those of other nations are pale anyway. So for anyone to make a big deal about it, well what can I say, pray you are never caught in one of many nations abroad who will torture you to death.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Constellation

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

To be honest I'm not sure I understand the point of releasing the documents, unless its a pretext to prosecution.

You need to understand the liberal yank mindset. The country is in financial ruins but switch on or to any liberal yank tv / radio / blog etc and they are still beating on about rights and this sort of rubbish. I've never ever heard of such rubbish being so important.

In the states, those classified as liberals are obsessed with rights issues and extremely paranoid with any government activity. Whereas in Australia and other places I have lived, people are more concerned about their privacy in the private sector and do not have an issue with their government doing their job; as long as the information is not relayed to others of course.

For example, I noticed in our local paper that you can find a teachers (government workers) salary, using their actual name, because it is available under the "freedom of information act". Something that is absolutely confidential and illegal in Australia.

People are worried about privacy in this country too. Its weird, for instance, that the government can monitor people's communications without a warrant, yet we can't have a centralised database for medical records.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

...

The million dollar question is why was this even released. I have never ever heard of any other nation publishing their interrogation techniques or anything their CIA equivalent does actually. Whereas here they are treated like every other government department. You guys ever hear of what ASIO in Australia or MI6 does in the UK.

There are too many official secrets. You have to draw the line somewhere and hold your government accountable for its actions.

I mean... in the early 70's Richard Nixon conducted a massive campaign of carpet bombing in Cambodia during the Vietnam war - without Congress or the American people knowing about it.

But you shouldn't pretend that this is the first time that there were official disclosures or leaks. The Downing Street memo for instance, validated what a lot of people in the UK already suspected about the Iraq war. Noone was held accountable for that (they should have been), which is certainly disappointing - but that isn't the point IMO.

Journalists have a responsibility to report stories to the public when their elected officials have clearly abused their power and authority.

[Heracles 417]

People are worried about privacy in this country too. Its weird, for instance, that the government can monitor people's communications without a warrant, yet we can't have a centralised database for medical records.

The government cannot do anything here without a warrant or some sort of extensive hearing. The courts run the show here rather then the government. In AUS and the UK, no problem for the government.

Yet, do you realise six that if anyone had your name, they could use private data mining companies to find everything out about you. People could find out all of your medical, work history, places you lived in, phone numbers, salary, etc. All of this information is shared. Whereas it is illegal for any private company or source to store let alone share that downunder; thanks to a federal privacy act. Yes, the government is permitted to keep information on you as they are the government ( no brainer) but they too are not allowed to share it. No other individual or group is permitted to retrieve any of this information about me, from the government, using the US style "freedom of information act". Heck, caller ID there does not even share your name due to privacy concerns. No such things as reverse address searches etc.

Priorities here are in the wrong place and people are clearly barking up the wrong tree.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The courts should have oversight of such things... Otherwise there's no accountability and no checks and balances on the use/misuse of executive power.

That said - most countries have some variation of the Freedom of Information Act, including Australia and the UK. The UK also has the Data Protection Act. Very few I suspect are bereft of problems.

[Heracles 417]

The courts should have oversight of such things... Otherwise there's no accountability and no checks and balances on the use/misuse of executive power.

That said - most countries have some variation of the Freedom of Information Act, including Australia and the UK. The UK also has the Data Protection Act. Very few I suspect are bereft of problems.

The courts under the parliamentary system do not run the show. They are not the and all be all. We the people run the show. The laws are also quite dynamic and can be ratified accordingly, by the Parliament. The same Parliament who was voted in to represent, you guessed it, "we the people".

Whereas here you have a case of if its written in the holy grail know as the constitution, forgetabout it. I have read the constitution many times and find it one of the most ambiguous documents out there. Where every amendment can be twisted and taken out of the original (founding) context to suit an individuals or groups own agenda. Therefore, if you have a liberal judge, they will skew it to their views (ideology). If you have a conservative judge, they will skew it to their ideology. A system where judges rather than the will of the people gets to decide outcomes.

The courts need to represent the people's view (voice) and certainly not the other way around. Hence the epic fail in the US legal system. Try suing someone in the UK for spilling hot coffee on themselves, yet blaming the vendor. Sorry, not going to happen.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Constellation