What the President Didn't Say
Thursday September 7, 2006
Category: War on Terror
Image courtesy of the White House.Yesterday, President George W. Bush admitted that the United States has been holding accused terrorists in secret CIA prisons, and will soon be transferring them into Defense Department custody where they will be subject to the Geneva Conventions under the terms of the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006).
While the existence of secret CIA prisons isn't really news to civil libertarians, President Bush's speech is notable in large part because of what it doesn't say. By looking at strategic omissions in the president's statements, and suggested policy changes, it becomes possible to reasonably conclude that U.S. personnel have applied "moderate physical pressure," or "torture lite," to suspected terrorists under orders from the Bush administration, in possible violation of the War Crimes Act.
Let's examine relevant portions of the speech carefully. First:
He provides no tangible evidence to back up this assertion, but he doesn't really have to. The overwhelming memory of 9/11 hovers over his speech; he has delivered it less than a week before the fifth anniversary of the attacks, and even gone to the trouble of stocking the audience with the families of 9/11 victims, as he noted at the beginning of his speech:
Politicians typically make that kind of blatant appeal to fear when they're asking for more power, or attempting to justify power that they already have.
After reminding us that we're safe because his administration has been granted a controversial amount of power, President Bush goes on to say:
In other words, there are things that we wouldn't do to a soldier that we might do to a terrorist. Things that he alludes to in his very next sentence:
But President Bush is not talking about ordinary interrogations. Although he makes mention of military arrests in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the long-debated prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the real topic of his speech is a little more controversial:
Our choice, if we are to believe President Bush, is simple: Let the administration do what it wants to do to accused terrorists in these secret prisons, accused terrorists who have not been formally charged with any crimes, or look forward to more 9/11-scale attacks.
President Bush follows up this statement with a description of the arrest of Abu Zubaydah, and the most explicit concession yet that the CIA has used "torture-lite" as an interrogation method:
Note that with Abu Zubaydah, President Bush states very clearly that the CIA tried conventional interrogation techniques, that they didn't work, and that the newer, more controversial techniques yielded information that was helpful but may or may not have been crucial. Fair enough.
The information obtained from Khalid Sheikh Muhammad using these methods was crucial, right? That's how it sounds on a first reading, but let's look at what the president didn't say:
That doesn't make much sense...unless by "these procedures" President Bush is referring collectively to all interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, without making it clear how much information was obtained through ordinary interrogation, or how successful or unsuccessful the CIA's use of more controversial techniques might have been.
President Bush does give an example of one instance where Khalid Sheikh Muhammad gave specific information about a terrorist attack:
Note that, despite the numerous examples President Bush has given, he fails to name a single specific instance where the controversial interrogation techniques yielded any useful information that we didn't already have. The information invariably "helped" in some non-specific way:
The phrase "9/11" or "September 11th" is used 14 times in this short speech, which is actually about later attacks, if one wants to get technical, and not 9/11 itself. It is the specter of 9/11 that is supposed to make us amenable to...to...well, what, exactly?
President Bush mentions a proposal to ask Congress to approve military commissions to try suspected terrorists, but he has asked for that before--there's nothing new or controversial about this legislation, which has already been discussed and is expected to easily pass Congress. No, he's asking for something a little more controversial:
The fact that this lines up with the election season might not be coincidental; portraying Democrats as soft on terrorism, due to their civil liberties concerns, is central to the Republican Party's 2006 strategy. But if we take President Bush at his word and assume that politics plays no role in his decision, the implications are even more frightening. President Bush offers us a reassurance that is much less reassuring than silence would have been:
The Bush administration has long been accused of using "torture lite"--interrogation methods that constitute torture as far as most of the civilized world is concerned, but technically avoid violation of U.S. codes regarding torture. Except for the War Crimes Act, which--drafted, as it was, with international war crimes regulations in mind--uses a more widely accepted definition of torture.
So President Bush's message to the international community is simple: The CIA secret prisons, their existence long suspected by conspiracy buffs, really do exist. "Torture-lite" techniques, which the Bush administration has been long accused of using, really have been put to use. And, in an ultimate display of chutzpah, President Bush has asked Congress to pass legislation that would essentially legitimize both.
This is a very big deal, and the international human rights community recognizes it as such. Here's hoping the mainstream U.S. media will follow suit.
Full Coverage:
Image courtesy of the White House.
While the existence of secret CIA prisons isn't really news to civil libertarians, President Bush's speech is notable in large part because of what it doesn't say. By looking at strategic omissions in the president's statements, and suggested policy changes, it becomes possible to reasonably conclude that U.S. personnel have applied "moderate physical pressure," or "torture lite," to suspected terrorists under orders from the Bush administration, in possible violation of the War Crimes Act.
Let's examine relevant portions of the speech carefully. First:
One reason the terrorists have not succeeded is because of the hard work of thousands of dedicated men and women in our government, who have toiled day and night, along with our allies, to stop the enemy from carrying out their plans. And we are grateful for these hardworking citizens of ours.Note that what President Bush is saying here is very clearly that there is a connection between the amount of power given to his administration and the absence of post-9/11 terrorist attacks. He is arguing, in effect, that you can't have one without the other--that a more libertarian government would not be able to effectively fight terrorism.
Another reason the terrorists have not succeeded is because our government has changed its policies -- and given our military, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel the tools they need to fight this enemy and protect our people and preserve our freedoms.
He provides no tangible evidence to back up this assertion, but he doesn't really have to. The overwhelming memory of 9/11 hovers over his speech; he has delivered it less than a week before the fifth anniversary of the attacks, and even gone to the trouble of stocking the audience with the families of 9/11 victims, as he noted at the beginning of his speech:
Thank you. Thanks for the warm welcome. Welcome to the White House. Mr. Vice President, Secretary Rice, Attorney General Gonzales, Ambassador Negroponte, General Hayden, members of the United States Congress, families who lost loved ones in the terrorist attacks on our nation, and my fellow citizens: Thanks for coming.So the message here is undeniable: "When you hear me talk about these complex civil liberties issues, think of 9/11. Think of how much danger you're in, and how badly you want to be safe."
Politicians typically make that kind of blatant appeal to fear when they're asking for more power, or attempting to justify power that they already have.
After reminding us that we're safe because his administration has been granted a controversial amount of power, President Bush goes on to say:
The terrorists who declared war on America represent no nation, they defend no territory, and they wear no uniform. They do not mass armies on borders, or flotillas of warships on the high seas. They operate in the shadows of society; they send small teams of operatives to infiltrate free nations; they live quietly among their victims; they conspire in secret, and then they strike without warning.This is important because it is the same reasoning the Bush administration used in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) to justify treatment of accused terrorists in a manner inconsistent with the Geneva Conventions. The Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration's argument and ruled that the Geneva Conventions do in fact apply to accused terrorists, but President Bush's statement here is a subtle reminder that he still regards terrorists as a class of enemy separate from enemy soldiers.
In other words, there are things that we wouldn't do to a soldier that we might do to a terrorist. Things that he alludes to in his very next sentence:
In this new war, the most important source of information on where the terrorists are hiding and what they are planning is the terrorists, themselves. Captured terrorists have unique knowledge about how terrorist networks operate. They have knowledge of where their operatives are deployed, and knowledge about what plots are underway. This intelligence -- this is intelligence that cannot be found any other place. And our security depends on getting this kind of information.If President Bush is talking about ordinary interrogations, then this statement is meaningless pap. After all, what would be the alternative? Arresting accused terrorists and then not interrogating them?
But President Bush is not talking about ordinary interrogations. Although he makes mention of military arrests in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the long-debated prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the real topic of his speech is a little more controversial:
In addition to the terrorists held at Guantanamo, a small number of suspected terrorist leaders and operatives captured during the war have been held and questioned outside the United States, in a separate program operated by the Central Intelligence Agency. This group includes individuals believed to be the key architects of the September the 11th attacks, and attacks on the USS Cole, an operative involved in the bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and individuals involved in other attacks that have taken the lives of innocent civilians across the world. These are dangerous men with unparalleled knowledge about terrorist networks and their plans for new attacks. The security of our nation and the lives of our citizens depend on our ability to learn what these terrorists know.President Bush essentially concedes here that the CIA prisons are kept secret not because he fears that terrorists could attack ordinary military prisons to free accused terrorists, but because the CIA has conducted interrogations in a manner that he would rather the international human rights community not be privy to. Note the very clear connection he makes between the fact that the CIA prisons exist in the first place, and the fact that "the lives of our citizens depend on our ability to learn what these terrorists know."
Our choice, if we are to believe President Bush, is simple: Let the administration do what it wants to do to accused terrorists in these secret prisons, accused terrorists who have not been formally charged with any crimes, or look forward to more 9/11-scale attacks.
President Bush follows up this statement with a description of the arrest of Abu Zubaydah, and the most explicit concession yet that the CIA has used "torture-lite" as an interrogation method:
We knew that Zubaydah had more information that could save innocent lives, but he stopped talking. As his questioning proceeded, it became clear that he had received training on how to resist interrogation. And so the CIA used an alternative set of procedures. These procedures were designed to be safe, to comply with our laws, our Constitution, and our treaty obligations. The Department of Justice reviewed the authorized methods extensively and determined them to be lawful. I cannot describe the specific methods used -- I think you understand why -- if I did, it would help the terrorists learn how to resist questioning, and to keep information from us that we need to prevent new attacks on our country. But I can say the procedures were tough, and they were safe, and lawful, and necessary.And they gave us information we wouldn't have otherwise had, right? Well...not necessarily:
Zubaydah was questioned using these procedures, and soon he began to provide information on key al Qaeda operatives, including information that helped us find and capture more of those responsible for the attacks on September the 11th. For example, Zubaydah identified one of KSM's accomplices in the 9/11 attacks -- a terrorist named Ramzi bin al Shibh. The information Zubaydah provided helped lead to the capture of bin al Shibh. And together these two terrorists provided information that helped in the planning and execution of the operation that captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.So we used controversial and secret interrogation techniques in secret CIA prisons, denied due process, violated the Geneva Conventions and very probably the War Crimes Act as well (see below), and we got information that...well, helped.
Note that with Abu Zubaydah, President Bush states very clearly that the CIA tried conventional interrogation techniques, that they didn't work, and that the newer, more controversial techniques yielded information that was helpful but may or may not have been crucial. Fair enough.
The information obtained from Khalid Sheikh Muhammad using these methods was crucial, right? That's how it sounds on a first reading, but let's look at what the president didn't say:
Once in our custody, KSM was questioned by the CIA using these procedures, and he soon provided information that helped us stop another planned attack on the United States. During questioning, KSM told us about another al Qaeda operative he knew was in CIA custody -- a terrorist named Majid Khan. KSM revealed that Khan had been told to deliver $50,000 to individuals working for a suspected terrorist leader named Hambali, the leader of al Qaeda's Southeast Asian affiliate known as "J-I". CIA officers confronted Khan with this information. Khan confirmed that the money had been delivered to an operative named Zubair, and provided both a physical description and contact number for this operative.Please note that this is the paragraph that immediately follows the discussion of Abu Zubaydah. See a difference in the way these two interrogations are described? Zubaydah was interrogated in the normal way, didn't yield the necessary information, was subjected to "torture-lite," and yielded information that may or may not have been crucial to counterterrorism efforts. But Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was simply captured and questioned using "these procedures"--if we're to read this literally, he went straight from handcuffs to the sweat box.
That doesn't make much sense...unless by "these procedures" President Bush is referring collectively to all interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, without making it clear how much information was obtained through ordinary interrogation, or how successful or unsuccessful the CIA's use of more controversial techniques might have been.
President Bush does give an example of one instance where Khalid Sheikh Muhammad gave specific information about a terrorist attack:
KSM also provided vital information on al Qaeda's efforts to obtain biological weapons. During questioning, KSM admitted that he had met three individuals involved in al Qaeda's efforts to produce anthrax, a deadly biological agent -- and he identified one of the individuals as a terrorist named Yazid. KSM apparently believed we already had this information, because Yazid had been captured and taken into foreign custody before KSM's arrest....and the information was obtained through good old fashioned misdirection, something any good police detective could have used without violating the Bill of Rights, much less the Geneva Conventions or the War Crimes Act.
Note that, despite the numerous examples President Bush has given, he fails to name a single specific instance where the controversial interrogation techniques yielded any useful information that we didn't already have. The information invariably "helped" in some non-specific way:
Terrorists held in CIA custody have also provided information that helped stop a planned strike on U.S. Marines at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti -- they were going to use an explosive laden water tanker. They helped stop a planned attack on the U.S. consulate in Karachi using car bombs and motorcycle bombs, and they helped stop a plot to hijack passenger planes and fly them into Heathrow or the Canary Wharf in London.These nightmare scenarios are supposed to make us more receptive to the idea of secret CIA prisons and controversial interrogation techniques, as are the consistent references to the 9/11 attacks.
The phrase "9/11" or "September 11th" is used 14 times in this short speech, which is actually about later attacks, if one wants to get technical, and not 9/11 itself. It is the specter of 9/11 that is supposed to make us amenable to...to...well, what, exactly?
President Bush mentions a proposal to ask Congress to approve military commissions to try suspected terrorists, but he has asked for that before--there's nothing new or controversial about this legislation, which has already been discussed and is expected to easily pass Congress. No, he's asking for something a little more controversial:
So today, I'm asking Congress to pass legislation that will clarify the rules for our personnel fighting the war on terror. First, I'm asking Congress to list the specific, recognizable offenses that would be considered crimes under the War Crimes Act -- so our personnel can know clearly what is prohibited in the handling of terrorist enemies. Second, I'm asking that Congress make explicit that by following the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act our personnel are fulfilling America's obligations under Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions. Third, I'm asking that Congress make it clear that captured terrorists cannot use the Geneva Conventions as a basis to sue our personnel in courts -- in U.S. courts. The men and women who protect us should not have to fear lawsuits filed by terrorists because they're doing their jobs.Okay, so here's the pitch: "I've been running a secret program for five years that may be in violation of the War Crimes Act, I can give you no evidence that it ever accomplished any useful goals, and I want you to pass legislation that will, sight unseen, exempt that program from prosecution. Oh, and by the way--you have three weeks."
The need for this legislation is urgent. We need to ensure that those questioning terrorists can continue to do everything within the limits of the law to get information that can save American lives. My administration will continue to work with the Congress to get this legislation enacted -- but time is of the essence. Congress is in session just for a few more weeks, and passing this legislation ought to be the top priority.
The fact that this lines up with the election season might not be coincidental; portraying Democrats as soft on terrorism, due to their civil liberties concerns, is central to the Republican Party's 2006 strategy. But if we take President Bush at his word and assume that politics plays no role in his decision, the implications are even more frightening. President Bush offers us a reassurance that is much less reassuring than silence would have been:
I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it -- and I will not authorize it. Last year, my administration worked with Senator John McCain, and I signed into law the Detainee Treatment Act, which established the legal standard for treatment of detainees wherever they are held. I support this act. And as we implement this law, our government will continue to use every lawful method to obtain intelligence that can protect innocent people, and stop another attack like the one we experienced on September the 11th, 2001.Why would President Bush make a point of saying this if the CIA secret interrogation program did not include techniques that the international human rights community would describe as torture?
The Bush administration has long been accused of using "torture lite"--interrogation methods that constitute torture as far as most of the civilized world is concerned, but technically avoid violation of U.S. codes regarding torture. Except for the War Crimes Act, which--drafted, as it was, with international war crimes regulations in mind--uses a more widely accepted definition of torture.
So President Bush's message to the international community is simple: The CIA secret prisons, their existence long suspected by conspiracy buffs, really do exist. "Torture-lite" techniques, which the Bush administration has been long accused of using, really have been put to use. And, in an ultimate display of chutzpah, President Bush has asked Congress to pass legislation that would essentially legitimize both.
This is a very big deal, and the international human rights community recognizes it as such. Here's hoping the mainstream U.S. media will follow suit.
Full Coverage:
- Bush: U.S. Held Terror Suspects in Secret CIA Prisons (Robert Longley / About U.S. Government Information and Resources)
- The CIA's Secret Prisons (Keith Porter / About Globalization)
- Bush Administration Seeks Immunity from War Crimes Act (see item #1)
- An In-Depth Profile of President George W. Bush (Kathy Gill / About U.S. Politics)
- George W. Bush: The Early Years (Jacci Howard Bear / About Austin, Texas)
- Bushisms - Funny George W. Bush Quotes, Updated Frequently (Daniel Kurtzman / About Political Humor)
Comments
Dear Mr Tom Head,
You have picked apart every word said by Bush and his administration in your desperate attempt to build a case against what has been a very effective program that has directly saved thousands of your neighbors, friends, and possibly yourself, from horrific death at the hands of terrorists. You would clearly much prefer to live in your utopian dream society where the biggest danger that exists is when sheep block the road home, unfortunately that is not the world we live in. When Bush says that this program has “helped”.. it means it has worked with tremendous success and is directly responsible for saving your pitiful life. But he must say simply “helped”, otherwise everyone will want to know exactly what the CIA has learned, which would compromise ongoing surveilance. You should thank Bush for giving you the umbrella under which to hide your foolish critisms while sipping on your latte, safe, secure and free to be a spineless intellectual fool. Meanwhile, those with courage are out saving your life. I only hope and pray that fools like you will be the first to pay the price if Bush and his cohorts are forced by your kind to sit back and pretend that terrorists are just like you and me. I suppose that if you were to encounter a deadly alligator set on eating you that you would try to reason with it and open your handy Geneva convention manual to study rules of engagement as the creature chewed you into pieces? Feel free. All Head and no Heart.
The concerns raised seem to make sense; I hear “these are not good things, and here are some reasons why” but what I don’t hear is “and this is what we should be doing instead because…XYZ”.
Without any other “new” options to consider I am left to pick between the “new things we are trying, which aren’t perfect” and simply “the way we used to do things”
Faced with that binary decision, we can simply watch and observe what the majority will prefer.
No need to call the writer of the article “fool”, just say your nice comment “Sickened “and let the other have their comment too. In my opinion all the arguments which you brought forward could have happened the same way in the “Deutsche Reich” in Hitler’s times.
Entire piece is a silly mish mash of assumptions and logical fallacies attempting to put words never spoken or implied into Bush’s mouth and to derive “facts” which are not factual at all, all in furtherance of the left wing alternative reality.
Having gotten control of the Supremes, the left likes to regard their decisions as absolute, when they are in fact often just absolutely wrong. The Geneva Convention was an attempt to codify “civilized” warfare among organized nation states, who agreed, as long as the other parties did, to conduct warfare and prioner of war conduct within specified rules. It is not general, but specific to the nation states who ratified and recognize it when conducting warfare with each other. Since terrorists represent no signatory state, and observe no rules of warfare, indeed preferring to conduct all operations so as to violate such rules to the max extent possible, they clearly are not entitled to GC protection, regardless of what the left wingers on the Supremes say.
The silly, naive, alternative reality of the left is exemplary of what brings great civilizations to an end; sort of like insisting on bringing a pea shooter to a gunfight.
Every word out of Bush’s mouth is intended to scare the electorate into voting for Republicans one more time. But we won’t be fooled again!
Democrats will commit themselves to national security without invading nations that are not attacking us.
To call this author an “intellectual” as the first commenter “Sickened” did is much too generous and counter to the lack of intellect brought to Mr. Head’s argument against Bush and how to deal with terrorists. The author’s arguments show an ignorance of this pervasive enemy who has declared war on the USA and who are not a State but individuals and groups who remain harbored and sponsored by major States such as Iran and Syria and who have no regard for human life. The same people who would behead another human being on video are the ones Mr Head is concerned may receive “moderate physical pressure.” Our enemies depend on weakness exhibited by the likes of Mr. Head as he ignores their atrocities and the reality of the threat they pose to civilization as he advances a stale Liberal vs. Conservative agenda against the President while offering no better way to defend our nation. And not understanding the threat of people out to destroy our nation is the last thing one could call “intellectual”, actually I’d call it dangerous and simple minded.
After reading the above comments, I am left with even more pleasant thoughts about the attitude expressed by the majority of posters over on US Military.
(Just to help previous posters here out, the vast majority of those people have ACTUALLY put their butts on the line to protect the rights and freedoms that many rabidly proBush people think should be dispensed with in the name of “Security”.)
The consensus of those “no-neck, baby-killing, fascists” (as many “Civil Libertarians” like to style them) is “If we want the world to look at us as ‘the good guys’ then we HAVE TO ACT like ‘good guys’. As soon as we start acting like ‘the bad guys’, then we become ‘bad guys’ in the eyes of the world.” – a not completely unrealistic attitude and one that appears to have escaped the notice of the current leadership of the Executive Branch of the government of the United States of America.