TNR BLOGS

July 05, 2009 | 4:05 PM
July 05, 2009 | 12:13 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:18 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 05, 2009 | 12:02 PM
July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
17.06.2008
Put This in the "Sadly, to Be Expected" File

From Joby Warrick in today's Washington Post:

A Senate investigation has concluded that top Pentagon officials began assembling lists of harsh interrogation techniques in the summer of 2002 for use on detainees at Guantánamo Bay and that those officials later cited memos from field commanders to suggest that the proposals originated far down the chain of command, according to congressional sources briefed on the findings.

The sources said that memos and other evidence obtained during the inquiry show that officials in the office of then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld started to research the use of waterboarding, stress positions, sensory deprivation and other practices in July 2002, months before memos from commanders at the detention facility in Cuba requested permission to use those measures on suspected terrorists.

The reported evidence--some of which is expected to be made public at a Senate hearing today--also shows that military lawyers raised strong concerns about the legality of the practices as early as November 2002, a month before Rumsfeld approved them. The findings contradict previous accounts by top Bush administration appointees, setting the stage for new clashes between the White House and Congress over the origins of interrogation methods that many lawmakers regard as torture and possibly illegal.

What puzzles me is why the administration felt the need to mislead Congress and the public about this. It seems unlikely many people would object to the Pentagon conducting research into the question of which interrogation techniques are acceptable and which ones cross the line: It wouldn't have taken a genius to predict, in the summer of 2002, that we might want to try to goad some uncooperative detainees into talking. The problem, rather, is that the White House ignored the conclusions that were reached by military lawyers and decided instead to permit the use of techniques which shouldn't have been allowed, like waterboarding. To pretend that high-ranking officials had no interest whatsoever in harsh interrogation techniques until interrogators at Guantánamo asked for them, in addition to not being credible, is another instance of the administration's penchant for deception and secrecy even in cases where candor would suit their purposes just as well.

--Josh Patashnik 

Posted: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 12:42 PM with 2 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

icarusr said:

"started to research the use of waterboarding, stress positions, sensory deprivation and other practices in July 2002,"

How do you research these things?  I mean, did they subject themselves to the "procedures", or did they have willing test subjects ("Mr Libby, do you mind trying this position for us - we're doing some research ...")?  Or do you check the internet ("waterboarding", "watersporting" - must have been an interesting "cookie" list)?  And why these and no others?  There is a WEALTH of data on previously approved "goading" methods: the thumbscrew, the crown of thorns (both in the Biblical and in the Eastern European, hot metal variety), the crucifix - a 2000 year provenance - to mention but a few.  Then there is "The Egg" - the CIA taught it to Iran's SAVAK, and it has highly effective, not to mention simple and environmentally friendly: a hot, hardboiled egg, and some vaseline.  

"research" ... makes you pine for the good old days.

June 17, 2008 2:02 PM

kevincollins said:

Let's not forget this little jewel that hit the news today:

-- Rumsfeld signed a December 2002 memo OK'ing techniques such as threatening prisoners with dogs and forcing them to stand for prolonged periods. "I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?" Rumsfeld wrote on the memo, according to Levin --

How about ordering Rumsfeld to stand in the same place for 8-10 hours and see how it's no big deal? I mean, seriously, wouldn't anyone with even the barest of acumens be embarrassed to say something so palpably absurd?

June 17, 2008 4:50 PM