« Partisan Trends | Main | The Case for Pork »

The Dark Side

13 Jul 2008 12:11 pm

It hardly needs to be said that folks should be buying my book but Jane Mayer's The Dark Side sounds pretty good, too:

In her telling, a major incentive for Mr. Cheney’s descent into the dark side was to cover up for the Bush White House’s failure to heed the Qaeda threat in 2001. Jack Cloonan, a special agent for the F.B.I.’s Osama bin Laden unit until 2002, told Ms. Mayer that Sept. 11 was “all preventable.” By March 2000, according to the C.I.A.’s inspector general, “50 or 60 individuals” in the agency knew that two Al Qaeda suspects — soon to be hijackers — were in America. But there was no urgency at the top. Thomas Pickard, the acting F.B.I. director that summer, told Ms. Mayer that when he expressed his fears about the Qaeda threat to Mr. Ashcroft, the attorney general snapped, “I don’t want to hear about that anymore!”

After 9/11, our government emphasized “interrogation over due process,” Ms. Mayer writes, “to pre-empt future attacks before they materialized.” But in reality torture may well be enabling future attacks. This is not just because Abu Ghraib snapshots have been used as recruitment tools by jihadists. No less destructive are the false confessions inevitably elicited from tortured detainees. The avalanche of misinformation since 9/11 has compromised prosecutions, allowed other culprits to escape and sent the American military on wild-goose chases. The coerced “confession” to the murder of the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to take one horrific example, may have been invented to protect the real murderer.

The biggest torture-fueled wild-goose chase, of course, is the war in Iraq. Exhibit A, revisited in “The Dark Side,” is Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an accused Qaeda commander whose torture was outsourced by the C.I.A. to Egypt. His fabricated tales of Saddam’s biological and chemical W.M.D. — and of nonexistent links between Iraq and Al Qaeda — were cited by President Bush in his fateful Oct. 7, 2002, Cincinnati speech ginning up the war and by Mr. Powell in his subsequent United Nations presentation on Iraqi weaponry. Two F.B.I. officials told Ms. Mayer that Mr. al-Libi later explained his lies by saying: “They were killing me. I had to tell them something.”

No one could have predicted that methods copied from a report entitled "Communist Attempts to Elicit False Confessions from Air Force Prisoners of War" would wind up eliciting false confessions.

Share This

Comments (21)

This, of course, only supports my contention that torture is good for extracting confessions, both true and false but of no value in obtaining information unless that information is supported by sources. Mr. al-Libi says it well, the victim will tell his interrogators anything to get them to stop.

These are the kind of results you get when fascist retards are running your country.

There is no question that, if we had a rule of law in this country, Bush and Cheney would have been impeached, removed from office, and sent to the Hague to stand for war crimes.

No matter how many dimwitted thugs attempt to distract from the truth there is also no question that Iraq was not in the throes of a humanitarian crisis perpetrated by Saddam Hussein (that would be the sanctions), it was not a threat to its neighbors and is sure as fuck wasn't a threat to the United States.

The assault on the people of Iraq was a crime. All else is commentary.

Franken already pointed all this out clearly in his book. But of course, it wasn't news -- didn't involve a blow job!

There is this bizarre and sickening notion mentioned by Glenn Greenwald that to impeach over serious matters like butchering human beings based on lies is to "criminalize policy differences." This excuse being used to justify Reagan and even Nixon.

So Nixon, who used the national security apparatus to game the election, was a "victim." Reagan, who sold arms to our enemies to fund terrorists in Central America, just had our best interests in mind.

But Clinton, whose lies killed no one and whose crimes were of the rarely prosecuted kind, needed to be removed from office for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Yes, yes, I know, It's okay if you are a Republican. Fuck.

No one could have predicted that methods... would wind up eliciting false confessions.

Hey, it's all good. True confessions, false confessions -- what's the difference??? "Getting information" was just the cover story. The torture itself was the point.

There's a moment in "Dr. Strangelove" when General Ripper, after learning Captain Mandrake had been a prisoner of the Japanese, asks if Mandrake had been tortured. He had. "Did you tell 'em anything?" he asks. Mandrake answers, "I don't think they really wanted me to, Jack. They were just having a bit of fun."

Sound familiar?

And there's a moment in Catch-22 worth mentioning here. "Catch-22" is invoked several times in the book, and each time it means something different. (It's the explanation from the first chapter that has entered common usage.) So consider this:

"Catch-22," the old woman repeated, rocking her head up and down. "Catch-22. Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing."

...

"Didn't they show it to you?" Yossarian demanded, stamping about in anger and distress. "Didn't you even make them read it?"

"They don't have to show us Catch-22," the old woman answered. "The law says they don't have to."

"What law says they don't have to?"

"Catch-22."


Sound familiar?


SLC: The mere increase in the availability of "confessions," as you call them, blithely disregarding their truth value as irrelevant, does nothing in itself to advance intelligence goals. Instead of torturing people until they tell us what we want to hear, why don't we just play "pretend torture," where we put a rag doll on a waterboard, and have a puppeteer with a cute voice say random things about the force composition of our enemies. If the random things the puppeteer says are "supported by sources," then the information we've gained will be identical to the information we might have gained through real torture, only without the mess that comes from forcing a human being to piss and shit himself into a coma.

Ask yourself, who benefited from ignoring the warnings of 9-11? How have things changed in America since?

Then visit www.wanttoknow.info for mainstream-media corroborated answers.

The coerced “confession” to the murder of the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to take one horrific example, may have been invented to protect the real murderer.

This sentence seem curiously at odds with itself. If the confession was a deliberate strategy, then it wasn't coerced. Which is not to say torture wasn't involved nevertheless.

People have suspected what Mayer reports from the beginning. A careful reading of the evasively-written 9/11 Commission report supported these suspicions.

I'm afraid that the lesson to take from Mayer's book is not "See? We we right all along!" but "They got away with it". The Bush administration used its own failure as a justification for moving the US in an authoritarian direction and embarking on an unrelated imperialist adventure.

The Democratic party (including the Obama team) seem to have no intention of calling anyone to account, and we cannot be sure that they even want to reverse the changes Bush and Cheney have made. This may be a fait accompli, with Mayer only telling us how it was that we lost.

If a widely-known crime remains unpunished, that's the criminal's ultimate victory, since he's gained impunity. I think that's where we are. Iran Contra was a first taste.

This sentence seem curiously at odds with itself. If the confession was a deliberate strategy, then it wasn't coerced. Which is not to say torture wasn't involved nevertheless.

Unless it was the ISI torturing Khalid to confess so they could protect one of their guys.

Jack Cloonan, a special agent for the F.B.I.’s Osama bin Laden unit until 2002, told Ms. Mayer that Sept. 11 was “all preventable.” By March 2000, according to the C.I.A.’s inspector general, “50 or 60 individuals” in the agency knew that two Al Qaeda suspects — soon to be hijackers — were in America. But there was no urgency at the top.

The funniest thing about this blog post is that these FBI special agents and CIA directors and similar types haven't simply succeeded in doing things like making sure that there is an appropriate "urgency at the top" when a terrorist operative is found to be in the US or doing something like learning to fly a commercial passenger jet.

Instead, what we've gotten is a police state where "every lead is followed" (by now we can see this slogan is short for "every lead is followed, no matter how ridiculous" because the people doing the investigating are too stupid to use their previous powers of discernment in a post 9/11 environment) with individuals beings arested and assaulted for wearing t-shirts with boring slogans like "John Kerry for President" and cowed "liberal" politicians and commentators going on blogs and TV telling us not to oppose things like FISA.

The national security experts were of the uniform opinion well prior to 9/11 that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda represented the biggest threats to America. If only the FBI, the CIA and the White House hadn't been asleep at the wheel, 9/11 could have been prevented, we wouldn't be failing to turn Iraq into a garden of eden, and we wouldn't have all these idiots trying to sell the necessity of things like waterboarding to us.

Talk about having a bunch of stupid people hired as FBI agents, CIA agents and White House cabinet members.

These people's verion of national security is to try to intimidate anyone who criticizes or disagrees with them or doesn't like conservative politics into shutting up. If only it was that easy to effectively defend our country, they might not need such a publicity push, but it's not.

Bush, the CIA, and the FBI have proven that you can give a bunch of law-and-order conservatives the keys to the kingdom, and not only will they let 9/11 happen, but they'll make almost every other mistake possible and screw our economy by doing things like letting the post-Katrina south go to hell.

Wjat a crock of shit from Mayer and Franch Rich, the reviewer.
As if the White House is informed and expected to act on each of the 30,000 fugitives the FBI is working to catch.
Especially one that was "hiding out" in San Jose under his own name and at his visa-listed address.

If Jack Cloonan, the FBI potato eater is to be believed, what he says is historically important because he and his FBI stooges DID in fact lie to investigators and the 9/11 Commission about the CIA not informing them that the two AQ combatants had entered the USA.

The fact is the FBI is far less competent than the CIA.

One thing that has totally disappeared down the memory hole is that Bush campaigned in 2000 against ethnic profiling of Arabs by airport security (see the second debate with Gore, 10/11/2000). The Bush Transportation Department was pressuring airport employees in 2001 not to give extra scrutiny to Arabs. The ticket man who checked in Atta on 9/11/2001 said he'd never seen anybody who looked more like an Arab terrorist but he gave himself a "politically correct slap" over his prejudice and went ahead with letting Atta on the flight with no inquiry.

All this is in the record, but it doesn't fit anybody's contemporary narratives of blame, so it's forgotten.

This is not at all surprising.

From Bush's personal cowardice to his prediliction for dressing up in military uniforms, to his corrupt support of his cronies, to his total incompetence at actually protecting the citizens of the nation, he's been a banana republican straight out of central casting.

Seriously, it's like we've got frigging General Garcia from The In-Laws running the country.

9/11 was known to happen. There were people in the FBI, in the CIA, in foreign intelligence services (including the Mossad, who only gave a vague warning to the US a couple weeks before the event to cover their asses, despite the fact that they had agents in the US shadowing the 9/11 hijackers - they HAD to know what was being planned, the Mossad are not dummies) who knew and gave explicit warnings.

Obviously the people at the top of the FBI, the CIA and the Pentagon knew what was going to go down. They let it happen.

This is all the "9/11 conspiracy theory" you need to know. You don't need robot airplanes with missiles mounted underneath them, or anything else to explain what happened.

(Well, you also need to know that Darth Cheney was in a bunker conducting a defense exercise involving airline hijacking that got all the jets that could have responded hundreds of miles away from their normal positions.)

It was ALLOWED to happen because the neocons and the Israelis wanted an excuse to start war in the Middle East for oil and war profits and Israel.

It's that simple.

Most of the United States population believes this. Most of the MSM and the wannabe pundits don't have the nerve to believe this.

Hell, even Jim Corr believes it.

Wasn't "The Arab Mind" in fact the great inspiration to would-be American torturers embarking on our great mission to colonize the Middle East? Much like the late 19th century German crackpot texts which pinpointed "The Jew"s psycho-sexual vulnerabilities - it was passed around like rare porn at all the Officers Clubs stateside and in theatre.

Wasn't "The Arab Mind" in fact the great inspiration to would-be American torturers embarking on our great mission to colonize the Middle East? Much like the late 19th century German crackpot texts which pinpointed "The Jew"s psycho-sexual vulnerabilities - it was passed around like rare porn at all the Officers Clubs stateside and in theatre.

The fact that torture, like many criminal acts, cannot be defined with the precision of a mathematical formula means that arbitrary state torture should be condoned and attempts to ban it are futile! Besides, you can't make an omlette without crushing a few testicles.

Of course "enhanced interrogation" works. This is war, baby, and anything that eliminates terrorists and saves American lives should not constitute a war crime. The administration has just done a terrible job of telling about our successes. But "a terrible job" for this administration is not news.


Comments closed July 27, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.