VF: Torture green-lighted at top: The Swamp
 
The Swamp
-
Posted April 2, 2008 11:07 AM
The Swamp

Vanity%20Fair

From the May issue of Vanity Fair.

by James Oliphant

The May issue of Vanity Fair contains an article that contends the Bush administration supported using extreme and perhaps torturous interrogation techniques at its highest levels.

The article, written by British law professor Phillipe Sands, maintains that an aggressive approach to questioning detainees at Guantanamo was encouraged by senior advisers to Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, among others. Some of their inspiration came from the actions of the fictional star of the series "24," Jack Bauer.

It comes just as the Justice Department has released a declassified memo from 2003 that outlined the legal justification for military interrogators to employ harsh interrogation techniques. That memo laid out the administration's view that members of al Qaeda and the Taliban were not protected by the Geneva Conventions.

And indeed, the VF article says something similar. Sands interviewed Douglas Feith, then a top Pentagon official. According to the magazine:

Feith confirms that the logic of the law was not followed with respect to Geneva, rather it deliberately created a legal black hole into which the detainees were meant to fall—and that was the point. “Didn’t the administration’s approach mean that Geneva’s constraints on interrogation couldn’t be invoked by anyone at Guantánamo?” Sands asked Feith. “Oh yes, sure,” Feith replied. “Was that the intended result?” “Absolutely.” Sands writes that he asked again: Under the Geneva Conventions, no one at Guantánamo was entitled to any protection? “That’s the point,” Feith reiterated. As he saw it, either you were a detainee to whom Geneva didn’t apply (al-Qaeda fighters, because they weren’t part of a state); or you were a detainee to whom Geneva applied but whose rights you couldn’t invoke (members of the Taliban, because they hadn’t worn uniforms or insignia). What was the difference for the purpose on interrogation? Sands asked. Feith answered with a certain satisfaction: “It turns out, none. But that’s the point.”

When Sands asks Feith whether he was at all concerned that the Geneva decision might have diminished America’s moral authority, Feith tells Sands, “The problem with moral authority” was “people who should know better, like yourself, siding with the assholes, to put it crudely.”

According to Sands, Feith’s arguments were so clever that General Richard Myers, joint chiefs chairman, continued to believe that Geneva’s protection remained in force, and was “well and truly hoodwinked,” a seasoned observer of military affairs tells Sands.

The article points to David Addington, then counsel to Cheney, and Alberto Gonzales, then the White House counsel, as particularly involved in developing interrogation policy. It also suggests that the senior officials involved could face war crimes charges if they leave the United States.

The new issue of the magazine hits newsstands in New York and Los Angleles today, with distribution nationwide next week.

Digg Delicious Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo

Comments

This is not news. Everyone knows this. Republics still havent' made up their minds though. Half of them say torture is OK because these people are evil and the other half denies we torture.


The Bush administration was perfectly within applicable law and treaty in what it did.

Naturally, the Swamp reporter doesn't dare try and interview someone to rebut Vanity Fair's rehash of left-wing talking points, the usual convenient anonymous sources and Sands himself, professional anti-American.

Which is the best indication that the Swamp reporter knows his and Vanity Fair's silliness can't stand the scrutiny of open debate.


Indeed, everyone interested knows this.

The U.S. has been shamed all over the world by these hideous activities whil blubbering about rights.


The Bush administration was perfectly within applicable law and treaty in what it did.

Posted by: Stimson | April 2, 2008 1:06 PM

How do you know what was actually done during interrogations? Oh because the Admin says they followed all applicable laws and treaties you believe them? How patriotic of you, scumbag.


"BUSH & HIS FIVE FAB FREDDIES RAPPERS SPEAK"

YO, YO, YO, SAME TIME, SAME IRAQ BATTLEFIELD, SAME BUSH, BUSH IN THE BUSH. THIRTY YEAR "CUT" IN THE MAKINGS.

"THE FREAKS COME OUT AT NIGHT" THE FREAKS COME OUT. BOY I LOVED THAT SONG. ME AND DAD AND KARL WOULD JUST BUMP BUMP, AND ALBERTO, BOY COULD HE TWO STEP TO THE BOOGIE THE BOOGIE TO BE!

DAVID ADDINGTON, FRED FIELDING, ALBERTO GONZALES, DICK CHENEY AND "BIG POPPY" HIMSELF.
DEFENDERS OF THE "CONSTITUTION" DEFENDERS OF THE "WILL OF LAW"

"GATE KEEPERS TO THE TRUTH"

"THE BEAT WENT ON"

"IT WAS A MAJOR STRATEGIC VICTORY"

"THESE PAST FIVE YEARS HAVE TESTED OUR RESOLVE "WE'VE SEEN HARD DAYS AND SETBACKS"

WE JUST HOPE WE DON'T SEE THE "NUREMBURG" ROOM WHILE VISITING "NATO"


Vanity Fair is the same magazine that put a picture of Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame on the cover riding in a convertible to attack President Bush about Joe Wilson, the partisan hacks guy whose wife thought she was covert and sent him to Niger. Wilson said VP Cheney sent him and Cheney said no he didn't also he said the guy never wrote a report.Wilson and Plame have caused so much trouble in getting their 15 minutes of fame. Chuckie Schemer even put Wilson on TV to bash Bush in 06 election even though John Kerry fired him from his campaign for lying.
Vanity Fair is another liberal Democrat pushing rag. Jerry White, Springfield, IL


'Why aamm jus proud as punch. Really, as a punch in the nads. We sir-ee bub!'


First off, Valerie Plame was covert...do a little reading BEFORE posting. Second, she didn't SEND Joe, she didn't have the authority. Man, can you be any more of a right-wing tool?

And it is against the law...or was, until a sneaky SSupreme court ruling on a different matter. See prior to last month, whenever the U.S. signed a treaty, such as the Geneva Convention, it automatically became the law of the land. Since Geneva says torture is illegal, that made it illegal for us to do it. And read this memo the article talks about. I'm thinking crushing a child's testicles in front of his parents to get them to confess, is pretty much the definition of torture. Now back to this "cover Bush's a$$" move by the SSupreme Court, they recently ruled on another matter, that despite the fact the constitution says any treaty we sign becomes the law of the land, they said not unless congress acts to make it so. Right after we impeach Bush and Cheney, we should go after Scalia, Thomas and Alito!


Post a comment

(Anonymous comments will not be posted. Comments aren't posted immediately. They're screened for relevance to the topic, obscenity, spam and over-the-top personal attacks. We can't always get them up as soon as we'd like so please be patient. Thanks for visiting The Swamp.)

Please enter the letter "y" in the field below: