Why Obama Needs to Reveal Even More on Torture

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1892352,00.html

By Robert Baer Monday, Apr. 20, 2009

So far, so good: The Administration was absolutely right to declassify the Department of Justice-CIA interrogation memos. The argument that the letters compromise national security does not hold water. As noted in the memos, the interrogations techniques are taken from the military's escape and evasion training manuals, known as SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) — which in turn were taken from Chinese abusive interrogations used on our troops during the Korean War. If there is any doubt the techniques were already in the public domain, released detainees have more than detailed the abuse interrogation techniques they were subjected to.

But Obama should not stop there. The memos justify abusive interrogations by the completely discredited "ticking time-bomb" defense — that if we don't torture a suspect when we know there is an imminent threat, we stand to lose many, many American lives. But what ticking bomb? In one memo it states that it was thanks to waterboarding 9/11's mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that we learned about a "Second Wave" of attacks. There has been little heard since about the "Second Wave," so without more documents declassified, it can be assumed that KSM made it up to stop the waterboarding. In another memo, it is noted that senior Al Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah was tortured into admitting KSM was the 9/11 mastermind. The memo does not note that early on KSM freely admitted his role in an interview with al-Jazeera. (View pictures of life inside Guantanamo.)

Not everything related to abusive interrogations can be declassified, but nonetheless should be looked at by a blue-ribbon presidential commission. For instance, in an Aug. 1, 2002 memo there is a passing reference to "chatter" that suggests there's about to be another 9/11, the underlying message to Justice being that unless it approves the abusive interrogation techniques, the deaths of thousands of Americans will be on its head. Someone objective needs to take a close look at the exact wording of the "chatter", and tell the President whether there really was an imminent threat. The complete raw interrogation reports should also be reviewed by the same commission to compare it to follow-up investigations, in particular leads generated inside the United States. We cannot take anyone's word for it that the interrogations saved lives; someone objective needs to take a good hard look at the facts. (Watch TIME's video on the risks of chatter.)


Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is TIME.com's intelligence columnist and the author of See No Evil and, most recently, The Devil We Know

[pinto]

1. Kick

I was hoping we'd hear from more ex-intelligence officers.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. He Needs To Reveal The Torturers' Prison Sentences

Since many or most on DU seem to think torture's not such a big deal, I won't be holding my breath.

I'm just a throwback to the old days where torture was an war crime, and "I was only following orders" had zero standing.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. Cut the fucking hyperbole.

There is NOBODY who thinks that torture is OK.

There are MANY who know that unless the public is behind them, prosecutions of republicans on the torture issue will be seen as partisan payback, which will LOSE us congress next year, and LOSE us the presidency in '12. THEN where will the torturers be? BACK IN THE FUCKING WHITE HOUSE.

But of course, that's exactly what SOME here want.

+++++++

[MannyGoldstein]

5. War Crimes Are Never Ok

Being Jewish, I grew up watching film clips of emaciated bodies, including those of little children, being bulldozed into mass graves. One-third of all of the world's Jews were exterminated by a country that, before Hitler came to power, was arguably the most liberal and tolerant on Earth. There is no way we can abide torture or other war crimes.

Nobody said that being President would be a trivial exercise. Laughing about putting people in prison for smoking pot, while letting war criminals run free, is awful.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Bullshit.

Germany was NEVER one the the most liberal and tolerant societies. It (or the many small kingdoms that became it) ran a close second to Spain for prosecutions of witches and Jews in the middle-ages, something like a hundred thousand burned at the stake - there was ALWAYS a large repressive element in German culture. Prussian is synonymous with authoritarian. You are making shit up - just like you are making shit up about Obama not objecting to torture. If he was really interested in covering it up, why the fuck did he release the torture memos? He is getting the information to the PUBLIC - it's called transparency. And with enough public sentiment behind him he can ask Holder to initiate prosecutions without incurring the loss of the Whitehouse in '12.

Put away the checkerboard. It's a new game.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Uh... No.

A higher percentage of Jews served in the German army in WWI than did any other ethnicity. By the 1930s, the Jewish intermarriage rate in Germany was near 50%. German Jews were totally assimilated - they considered themselves Germans first, Jews second - just as in the US today. And so forth.

As to Obama tolerating torture: it is what it is. The administration is on record as saying they are not interested in protesting these war crimes.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. All at the same time that the Oberamergau passion play was

blaming the Jews for Jesus' death, as it had been for 400 years. Anti-semitism was deeply rooted in Germany, far more so than in either France or Britain (neither of which had stellar records either), and the 'assimilation' which you seem to think was a sign of tolerance was actually more a disintegration of ethnic culture. The way Jews integrated into German society was by 'passing' - when you are 4% of the population it doesn't occur to people that you might be of that 4% unless you make of point to letting them know - and the German Reform movement was all about blending in, abandoning the restrictions and dietary laws, and being good Germans first. Since 'everybody' knows that Jews don't eat shellfish, it doesn't occur to you that the guy eating the shrimp cocktail might be Jewish. That's why the Nazis had to mark and identify the Jewish businesses - they LOOKED like all the other businesses.

And as for the torture - that is ALSO bullshit. His statement was that he is not going after the little guy who thought that what he was doing was approved of by higher ups - he did NOT say he would NOT go after those higher ups. That door is wide open.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Oy. So Help Me Understand Emanuel's Statement Yesterday

Asked if Obama believes that those who devised the policies should be prosecuted, Emanuel said "no":

"Yes, but those who devised policy, he believes that they were -- should not be prosecuted either, and that's not the place that we go -- as he said in that letter, and I would really recommend people look at the full statement -- not the letter, the statement --in that second paragraph, "this is not a time for retribution." It's time for reflection. It's not a time to use our energy and our time in looking back and any sense of anger and retribution.

I understand that to mean that everyone from Bush down gets a pass on war crimes. What's yourunderstanding of that statement?

As to Germany, we'll have to agree to disagree, unless one of us can devise objective proof of my contention being right or wrong.

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. Emanuel is one step away - and that gives Obama deniability.

Emanuel does not make policy.

He can SAY "Obama said", but his saying it does not make it true. Three months or six months from now Obama could as easily say "we talked about it, but Emanuel's statement did not exactly reflect my opinion on the matter". The only word we have from Obama himself was that were were not interested in prosecuting those persons who acted in good faith - that means those who CREATED the pro-torture arguments can be prosecuted, those who gave to orders to torture can be prosecuted, those who exceeded the guidelines such as they were (and waterboarding someone 183 times when they had no reason to believe he had further information clearly exceeded the guidelines) can be prosecuted. In fact, only a very, very few are not subject to prosecution, going by what Obama himself has said.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. So Obama's Strategy Is To Announce That Torturers Will Not Be Prosecuted

but reserve the right to change his mind.

That's a pretty tenuous assertion, I think. Can you point out some other times when such a gambit has been used?

Occam's Razor would lead us to conclude that Obama simply won't prosecute these war crimes.

[Psychic Consortium]

3. Much more information will be coming out.

Then it will be up to the American people to decide the next step.

[kentuck]

6. I think Obama was playing hardball with the Repubs...

by releasing the memos.

He showed them what he had the power to do. And they started shitting bricks!

Now, if he doesn't get a little help with the health care and other important issues, he may release a little more hot steam into the room...?