"Mr. Tenet Declined To Be Interviewed"

[babylonsister]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/a-president-who-knew-and-asked-nothing.html

"Mr. Tenet Declined To Be Interviewed"
Andrew Sullivan


The NYT today offers a glimpse of the Bush administration's attempted defense of its full-scale adoption of torture tactics developed and finessed by Communist regimes bent on producing false confessions. They had no idea, we are now told, of the history of torture, no grasp of where the torture techniques they adopted came from, and no willingness to find out:

According to several former top officials involved in the discussions seven years ago, they did not know that the military training program, called SERE, for Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape, had been created decades earlier to give American pilots and soldiers a sample of the torture methods used by Communists in the Korean War, methods that had wrung false confessions from Americans.

Even George J. Tenet, the C.I.A. director who insisted that the agency had thoroughly researched its proposal and pressed it on other officials, did not examine the history of the most shocking method, the near-drowning technique known as waterboarding.

The top officials he briefed did not learn that waterboarding had been prosecuted by the United States in war-crimes trials after World War II and was a well-documented favorite of despotic governments since the Spanish Inquisition; one waterboard used under Pol Pot was even on display at the genocide museum in Cambodia.

Let us first note that if this is true, the decision to abandon the Geneva Conventions was based on literally criminal ignorance. Anyone with a degree in history or a Google account could have found out any of these things if they had wanted to. I did, as soon as the cascade of evidence of abuse and torture unleashed by Bush came to light. And let us note secondly that this is not a defense. For Tenet to have proposed a criminal torture technique without inquiring as to its history and past use is a function of criminal incompetence. For that, a man who presided over the worst attack on the homeland in US history and compounded it with destroying the moral standing of the US was awarded a Medal of Freedom.

Is it too late for Tenet to give it back?

[shraby]

1. Haven't we been told repeatedly since childhood that

ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it? Someone should call foul on Tenet...he's lying.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Andrew must have read my post!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5510728&mesg_id=5510728

[Norquist Nemesis]

3. Interesting...are the "former top officials" blaming the Intelligence Community

AGAIN?! Wasn't it the Intelligence Community's fault about Iraq's WMD also?

Hmmmmm....very, very interesting.

[babylonsister]

4. Carl Levin thinks so...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5510769&mesg_id=5510769

Sen. Levin: New Report: Bush Officials Tried to Shift Blame for ...Abuse to Low-Ranking Soldiers

[DCKit]

5. Was all of BushCo* homeschooled by ignorant, fundamentalist Luddites....

living in caves without books, television, radio or newspapers until being appointed by Dumbya?

How anyone aged 40-60 could claim to have avoided all knowledge of the Nuremberg trials and other prosecutions - or the reasons for those prosecutions - in the aftermath of WWII is beyond any credibility.

Sorry folks, but the ignorance of your base is not shared by "We, Teh Peoples". You know, the OTHER 82%.

[malaise]

6. Men are scurrying like rats

in an attempt to cover their tracks. The rats are slowly running onto the trap.
My grandmother used to tell us that one lie causes many.

[babylonsister]

7. Yep, or being vewy, vewy quiet, like Gonzo...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5506748

Why so silent, Alberto?

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/04/why-wont-gonzal...

Why Won't Gonzales Deny He Killed Harman-AIPAC Probe?
— By David Corn | Tue April 21, 2009 8:45 AM PST


If you had been falsely accused of doing something outrageous, wouldn't you declare you had done no such thing?

Everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence--at least in a courtroom--but it is certainly suspicious that former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has not denied the most recent allegations against him. My CQ colleague Jeff Stein reported late Sunday night that Gonzales had blocked a preliminary FBI investigation into Democratic Representative Jane Harman, who had been captured by NSA eavesdroppers telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would try to use her clout to lessen espionage-related charges filed against two AIPAC officials. In return for her assistance, the suspected Israeli agent reportedly offered to help Harman become chair of the House intelligence committee. On Tuesday, The New York Times confirmed much of the story--including the piece about Gonzales: that the then-AG killed the inquiry because Harman, then the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, could help the Bush administration defend its use of warrantless wiretaps.

So there are two lines of inquiry that official investigators ought to follow. First, whether Harman broke the law by offering to lean on the criminal investigation of AIPAC for help in advancing her career. (The Times reports that the suspected Israeli agent promised that media mogul Haim Saban would threaten to hold back donations to Rep. Nancy Pelosi if she did not award Harman the top slot on the intelligence committee; Saban's spokesperson did not respond to the Times' request for comment.) Second, whether Gonzales stopped a criminal investigation because the target (Harman) could help the Bush administration. Harman has put out a very carefully-worded denial that's full of holes. Gonzales, though, hasn't said anything. That's not very reassuring. Shouldn't a former attorney general be able to declare that he never halted an investigation as a favor to a lawmaker who was doing the administration a favor? If not, there's a problem--and a problem (no matter Barack Obama's penchant for leaving the past behind) deserving a thorough examination by someone with subpoena power.

These are both major scandals--and, alas, they are linked. Democrats on the Hill might welcome another opportunity to pursue Gonzales, but they are not going to be eager to chase after Harman, even though she is not the most popular among House Democrats. Hill Republicans who would love to see a Democrat caught in an ethics investigation may not be eager to give Dems more reason to investigate Gonzales and the Bushies. And FOIs--friends of Israel--on both sides of the aisle will not be enthusiastic about any probe that could depict a lawmaker as a tool of AIPAC and Israel. (On Monday, Pelosi said nothing about the Harman-AIPAC-Gonzales story.)

Justice Department internal investigators certainly have the standing to probe what happened with Gonzales and the Harman investigation. They may not care that much about Harman, but an investigation of Gonzales cannot get too far without a determination of what Harman said (to the suspected Israeli agent) and did (regarding the AIPAC prosecution). Meanwhile, congressional sources tell me that Hill people are wondering how many other members of Congress have held conversations that have been collected by the NSA.

With the Times picking up Stein's story, the whole thing has gone mainstream. (Not that CQ isn't mainstream.) As I noted yesterday, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington quickly sent requests to the Office of Congressional Ethics and the Justice Department for investigations. But someone is going to have to raise a fuss on Capitol Hill or within the executive branch for anything to happen. This double quid-pro-quo tale is truly a bipartisan embarrassment--and that's the best protection Harman and Gonzales could have.

[bvar22]

8. Maybe he is shooting for the...

..."Good Faith" exception to the Rule of Law that was invented this week, but does he have a note from his lawyer?