Q: Can you talk about this ABC News revelation about this Principals
Committee, all the names that I just gave=97you know, Condoleezza Rice,
Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, George Tenet, Attorney General John Ashcroft=97
first time senior White House officials linked to an explicit group
authorizing the CIA interrogation program, one top official recounting
Ashcroft was the lone cabinet member to raise doubts? The official
quoted Ashcroft as saying, =93Why are we talking about this in the White
House? History will not judge this kindly.=94
A: I think it=92s a very im****tant revelation. Of course, it deals not
with the military interrogations that I focused on, but with the CIA
interrogations, but they went hand-in-hand, and it=92s plain that they
were all part and parcel of a decision taken at the top. It confirms
my investigation, as a consequence; it=92s namely that this came
straight from the top.
=2E.
"the administration has spun a narrative that this was a bottom-up
thing, they were simply reacting to requests from people on the
ground. And what I=92ve discovered, and what was the center of the
gravity of what I said to the subcommittee, is that=92s a false
narrative. It came from the top down. A crime was committed in
relation to the detainee that I=92m looking at. ..He was abused. He was
probably, almost certainly, tortured in violation of international
law. But the biggest story may well be the cover-up, the spin, that
this came from the bottom up, when in fact it was top-down. And that
seemed to have resonated with the committee.."
- -
In April, ABC News re****ted Vice President Cheney, former National
Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
and Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and
Attorney General John Ashcroft all discussed and approved how [those]
suspected of leader****p with al-Qaeda would be [tortured] by the
CIA.
- - -
orge Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft all discussed and
approved how [those] suspected of leader****p with al-Qaeda would be
[tortured] by the CIA.
- -
Interview with Philippe Sands, British attorney and professor at
University College London. He is the author of the new book Torture
Team: Rumsfeld=92s Memo and the Betrayal of American Values. His last
book was Lawless World: America and the Making and Breaking of Global
Rules.
- - -
=2E..AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the former chair of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers?
PHILIPPE SANDS: I had one lengthy and fascinating conversation with
General Myers. I thought he was a decent man of integrity, but out of
his depth. And on two issues, I was staggered, so staggered, in fact,
that when I came home to London from my trip to the United States, I
told my wife what I discovered in conversation with him, which I=92m
about to share with you, and she was disbelieving=97she listened to the
tapes=97and said absolutely.
There were two points. Firstly, as everyone knows, the President took
a decision that none of the detainees at Guantanamo would have any
rights under the Geneva Conventions. It seems that General Myers was
unaware of that. He was under the impression they had decided that
Geneva would apply. So that was a fairly staggering discovery
[That's putting it mildly -- General Myers, the Chair of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, believes the Geneva Conventions do apply, and George
W. Bush takes it upon himself to claim they don't apply...(bad
enough..) without the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff being made
aware..
But it was as nothing compared to the discovery, as we went through
the techniques of interrogation one by one, that he had thought that
these came out of the US Field Manual guide for interrogations. They
were all prohibited. And as we went down the list, his jaw literally
dropped. So I got the sense that the most powerful military man in the
United States, indeed probably in the world, was blissfully unaware of
what had been decided.
[Either that or he's an extremely good actor and liar, which is a
worse scandal for the Republican Admin?]
AMY GOODMAN: We=92re talking to Philippe Sands. His book is Torture
Team=97
it is just out this week=97Rumsfeld=92s Memo and the Betrayal of American
Values.
I want to ask you about Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia=92s recent
statement that the torture of prisoners does not violate the Eighth
Amendment=92s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Scalia=92s comment came
during an interview with Lesley Stahl on CBS=92s 60 Minutes.
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: I don=92t like torture. I=92m=97although
defining it is going to be a nice trick. But, I mean, who=92s in favor
of it? Nobody. And we have a law against torture. But if the=97
everything that is hateful and odious is not covered by some provision
of the Constitution.
LESLEY STAHL: If someone=92s in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and
they are brutalized by a law enforcement person, if you listen to the
expression, =93cruel and unusual punishment,=94 doesn=92t that apply?
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: No, no.
LESLEY STAHL: Cruel and unusual punishment?
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: To the contrary. You think=97you think
that you would=97has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I
don=92t think so.
LESLEY STAHL: Well, I think if you=92re in custody and you have a
policeman who=92s taken you into custody=97
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: And you say he=92s puni****ng you?
LESLEY STAHL: Sure.
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: What=92s he puni****ng you for? You punish
somebody=97
LESLEY STAHL: Well, because he assumes you, one, either
committed a crime=97
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: No, no.
LESLEY STAHL: =97or that you know something that he wants to know.
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: Ah, it=92s the latter. And when
he=92s=97when
he=92s=97when he=92s hurting you in order to get information from you=97
LESLEY STAHL: Yeah?
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: =97you don=92t say he=92s puni****ng you.
What=92s he puni****ng you for? He=92s trying to extract=97
LESLEY STAHL: Because he thinks you=92re a terrorist, and he=92s
going to beat the you-know-what out of you.
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: Anyway, that=92s my view. And it happens
to be correct.
AMY GOODMAN: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, being questioned by
60 Minutes=92s Lesley Stahl. Philippe Sands?
PHILIPPE SANDS: I=92m not an expert on US constitutional law. I=92ll talk
about what I know, which is international law. The US is a party to
all of those conventions that prohibit torture. That is a shocking
statement by a serving justice, who I know is very partial to the
television program 24, along with his colleague Clarence Thomas. It=92s=97
AMY GOODMAN: Explain 24.
PHILIPPE SANDS: 24 is a television program in which the use of torture
is essentially rejoiced in as a technique for producing meaningful
information. It had an effect down at Guantanamo. One of the things I
discovered in my conversations was that people watched it, people were
influenced by it, probably apparently as Antonin Scalia is.
But that is a shocking statement. And I put it in these terms. If he=92s
going to express that view, that the United States president is free
to authorize torture, then why isn=92t the Iranian president free to
authorize torture against American nationals? Why isn=92t the Egyptian
president free to organize=97authorize torture? The logic of the
argument is really surprising and, frankly, outrageous.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you, Philippe Sands, about the
possibility of US officials being charged with war crimes. You were
quoted in a New York Times piece on Tuesday: =93Mr. Sands, a British law
professor, said two foreign prosecutors, whom he did not name, asked
him for the materials on which his book Torture Team was based. =91If
the US doesn=92t address this,=92 he said, =91other countries will.=92"
PHILIPPE SANDS: That=92s an accurate account, and I describe, in one of
the concluding chapters of the book, conversations I had with a
European prosecutor and a European judge. And the committee was very
interested in that, in relation to a question they asked me and the
other witnesses giving testimony: =93What should this committee do?=94 And
the answer that I gave was, =93Look, it=92s not for me to make
recommendations on precisely what you do and don=92t do, but what needs
to happen is the United States needs to get involved in an accounting
process. The committee needs to establish the facts. And if the United
States doesn=92t, others will do it.=94 And I have no doubt, no doubt
whatsoever, that investigations will take place, if they=92re not
already taking place, and that some of these individuals, if they
travel outside the United States, will face a very real threat of
investigation.
AMY GOODMAN: And the legality of what President Bush said, or the
implications of it, when he said to ABC News, =93We started to connect
the dots in order to protect the American people. Yes, I=92m aware our
national security team met on this issue, and I approved=94?
PHILIPPE SANDS: Well, it appears to be an admission that the President
of the United States authorized torture, that he authorized
waterboarding. The convention prohibiting torture, the Geneva
Conventions are absolutely clear: there are no cir***stances in which
torture is permitted. And if the account is accurate, the President
is, in effect, owning up to the fact that he has committed a war
crime. And under the torture convention, there is an obligation to
investigate any person who has committed a war crime. So it was a very
surprising admission. I wonder if it was fully thought through. If
it=92s accurate, it is deeply disturbing.
AMY GOODMAN: Philippe Sands, you talked in your testimony before
Congress about torture and what Britain learned in its fight with the
IRA, with the Irish Republican Army.
PHILIPPE SANDS: In many ways, that was actually the most interesting
exchange that I had, because I had it with some seemingly very
sensible Republican congressmen, who were very interested and came up
and talked to me about that afterwards. What I shared was that the
experience of Brits across the political spectrum=97it=92s not a left-
right issue, as I explained=97derives from the experience we had in the
early 1970s, in which the United Kingdom moved to aggressive
interrogation. And they used pretty much the same techniques of
interrogation: hooding, stress, humiliation. And it backfired
terribly. On all military accounts, it extended the conflict by
between fifteen and twenty years,... And no one in the United Kingdom,
literally no one from any of the main political parties or across the
political spectrum will in any cir***stances sup****t what has been
apparently authorized by [GW Bush]"
- -
Interview with Philippe Sands, British attorney and professor at
University College London. He is the author of the new book Torture
Team: Rumsfeld=92s Memo and the Betrayal of American Values. His last
book was Lawless World: America and the Making and Breaking of Global
Rules.
- - -
=2E..AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the former chair of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers?
PHILIPPE SANDS: I had one lengthy and fascinating conversation with
General Myers. I thought he was a decent man of integrity, but out of
his depth. And on two issues, I was staggered, so staggered, in fact,
that when I came home to London from my trip to the United States, I
told my wife what I discovered in conversation with him, which I=92m
about to share with you, and she was disbelieving=97she listened to the
tapes=97and said absolutely.
There were two points. Firstly, as everyone knows, the President took
a decision that none of the detainees at Guantanamo would have any
rights under the Geneva Conventions. It seems that General Myers was
unaware of that. He was under the impression they had decided that
Geneva would apply. So that was a fairly staggering discovery
[That's putting it mildly -- General Myers, the Chair of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, believes the Geneva Conventions do apply, and George
W. Bush takes it upon himself to claim they don't apply...(bad
enough..) without the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff being made
aware..
But it was as nothing compared to the discovery, as we went through
the techniques of interrogation one by one, that he had thought that
these came out of the US Field Manual guide for interrogations. They
were all prohibited. And as we went down the list, his jaw literally
dropped. So I got the sense that the most powerful military man in the
United States, indeed probably in the world, was blissfully unaware of
what had been decided.
[Either that or he's an extremely good actor and liar, which is a
worse scandal for the Republican Admin?]
AMY GOODMAN: We=92re talking to Philippe Sands. His book is Torture
Team=97
it is just out this week=97Rumsfeld=92s Memo and the Betrayal of American
Values.
I want to ask you about Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia=92s recent
statement that the torture of prisoners does not violate the Eighth
Amendment=92s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Scalia=92s comment came
during an interview with Lesley Stahl on CBS=92s 60 Minutes.
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: I don=92t like torture. I=92m=97although
defining it is going to be a nice trick. But, I mean, who=92s in favor
of it? Nobody. And we have a law against torture. But if the=97
everything that is hateful and odious is not covered by some provision
of the Constitution.
LESLEY STAHL: If someone=92s in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and
they are brutalized by a law enforcement person, if you listen to the
expression, =93cruel and unusual punishment,=94 doesn=92t that apply?
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: No, no.
LESLEY STAHL: Cruel and unusual punishment?
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: To the contrary. You think=97you think
that you would=97has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I
don=92t think so.
LESLEY STAHL: Well, I think if you=92re in custody and you have a
policeman who=92s taken you into custody=97
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: And you say he=92s puni****ng you?
LESLEY STAHL: Sure.
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: What=92s he puni****ng you for? You punish
somebody=97
LESLEY STAHL: Well, because he assumes you, one, either
committed a crime=97
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: No, no.
LESLEY STAHL: =97or that you know something that he wants to know.
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: Ah, it=92s the latter. And when
he=92s=97when
he=92s=97when he=92s hurting you in order to get information from you=97
LESLEY STAHL: Yeah?
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: =97you don=92t say he=92s puni****ng you.
What=92s he puni****ng you for? He=92s trying to extract=97
LESLEY STAHL: Because he thinks you=92re a terrorist, and he=92s
going to beat the you-know-what out of you.
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: Anyway, that=92s my view. And it happens
to be correct.
AMY GOODMAN: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, being questioned by
60 Minutes=92s Lesley Stahl. Philippe Sands?
PHILIPPE SANDS: I=92m not an expert on US constitutional law. I=92ll talk
about what I know, which is international law. The US is a party to
all of those conventions that prohibit torture. That is a shocking
statement by a serving justice, who I know is very partial to the
television program 24, along with his colleague Clarence Thomas. It=92s=97
AMY GOODMAN: Explain 24.
PHILIPPE SANDS: 24 is a television program in which the use of torture
is essentially rejoiced in as a technique for producing meaningful
information. It had an effect down at Guantanamo. One of the things I
discovered in my conversations was that people watched it, people were
influenced by it, probably apparently as Antonin Scalia is.
But that is a shocking statement. And I put it in these terms. If he=92s
going to express that view, that the United States president is free
to authorize torture, then why isn=92t the Iranian president free to
authorize torture against American nationals? Why isn=92t the Egyptian
president free to organize=97authorize torture? The logic of the
argument is really surprising and, frankly, outrageous.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you, Philippe Sands, about the
possibility of US officials being charged with war crimes. You were
quoted in a New York Times piece on Tuesday: =93Mr. Sands, a British law
professor, said two foreign prosecutors, whom he did not name, asked
him for the materials on which his book Torture Team was based. =91If
the US doesn=92t address this,=92 he said, =91other countries will.=92"
PHILIPPE SANDS: That=92s an accurate account, and I describe, in one of
the concluding chapters of the book, conversations I had with a
European prosecutor and a European judge. And the committee was very
interested in that, in relation to a question they asked me and the
other witnesses giving testimony: =93What should this committee do?=94 And
the answer that I gave was, =93Look, it=92s not for me to make
recommendations on precisely what you do and don=92t do, but what needs
to happen is the United States needs to get involved in an accounting
process. The committee needs to establish the facts. And if the United
States doesn=92t, others will do it.=94 And I have no doubt, no doubt
whatsoever, that investigations will take place, if they=92re not
already taking place, and that some of these individuals, if they
travel outside the United States, will face a very real threat of
investigation.
AMY GOODMAN: And the legality of what President Bush said, or the
implications of it, when he said to ABC News, =93We started to connect
the dots in order to protect the American people. Yes, I=92m aware our
national security team met on this issue, and I approved=94?
PHILIPPE SANDS: Well, it appears to be an admission that the President
of the United States authorized torture, that he authorized
waterboarding. The convention prohibiting torture, the Geneva
Conventions are absolutely clear: there are no cir***stances in which
torture is permitted. And if the account is accurate, the President
is, in effect, owning up to the fact that he has committed a war
crime. And under the torture convention, there is an obligation to
investigate any person who has committed a war crime. So it was a very
surprising admission. I wonder if it was fully thought through. If
it=92s accurate, it is deeply disturbing.
AMY GOODMAN: Philippe Sands, you talked in your testimony before
Congress about torture and what Britain learned in its fight with the
IRA, with the Irish Republican Army.
PHILIPPE SANDS: In many ways, that was actually the most interesting
exchange that I had, because I had it with some seemingly very
sensible Republican congressmen, who were very interested and came up
and talked to me about that afterwards. What I shared was that the
experience of Brits across the political spectrum=97it=92s not a left-
right issue, as I explained=97derives from the experience we had in the
early 1970s, in which the United Kingdom moved to aggressive
interrogation. And they used pretty much the same techniques of
interrogation: hooding, stress, humiliation. And it backfired
terribly. On all military accounts, it extended the conflict by
between fifteen and twenty years, because it creates such resentment
in the community that is associated with the people who are being
abused that it served to generate further opposition and people moving
to violence. So basically the message is: it doesn=92t work. And no one
in the United Kingdom, literally no one from any of the main political
parties or across the political spectrum will in any cir***stances
sup****t what has been apparently authorized by the President in this
country."
- - - -
AMY GOODMAN: You live in Britain. Your book is Torture Team, though,
about the United States and international law. The people involved
that you=92re talking about go across the gamut, now a number out of
office. You have John Yoo, for example, who=92s a law professor at
University of California, Berkeley. You have Douglas Feith, who=92s now
teaching at Georgetown. What are your thoughts about this?
PHILIPPE SANDS: John Yoo=92s dean at Berkeley has been subject to
intense criticism for not firing him, and indeed there was even an op-
ed, an opinion, an editorial, in the New York Times, saying he
basically shouldn=92t be teaching there anymore. Dean Edley wrote an
interesting letter, in which he said, look, there=92s freedom of
expression, that includes freedom of views, and under the rules at
Berkeley, you can only fire someone if they=92ve been convicted in a
court of law of committing a criminal offense. And John Yoo has not
been convicted of committing a criminal offense. And in our system,
you are innocent until proven guilty.
I=92ve laid out the reasons why I believe John Yoo has participated in
authorizing torture, and that exposes him to investigation. But I
entirely accept that until he is actually condemned by a court of law,
he is perfectly entitled to carry on peddling views, even if I
violently and fundamentally disagree with those views.
As regards Doug Feith, I spent time with him. He=92s an entertaining
character, but he=92s a scary character. I=92ve read his book, 900 pages
on war and decision, five pages devoted to the issue of
interrogations. And you read that book, and you have no idea that this
man was deeply involved in the decisions that I write about. It=92s
spin. It=92s whitewash. There=92s a failure to accept responsibility. And
that, I think, is what is going to cause them in difficulty, because
it=92s essentially a cover-up.
- - -
AMY GOODMAN: We invited Douglas Feith on the show, but we didn=92t get a
response. Can you talk about the significance of the 1947 case, United
States of America v. Josef Altstoetter?
PHILIPPE SANDS: It =91s a delicate case. It=92s one of the cases known as
the Justice Cases, the only time that lawyers have ever been convicted
of international crimes for carrying out their professional
activities.
AMY GOODMAN: Lawyers?
PHILIPPE SANDS: Lawyers. The focus was on lawyers. I included
reference to that case in my book, because I found it ironic that the
theory that lawyers could cross a line and be investigated,
prosecuted, and convicted for committing international crimes was a
theory that was drawn up by the United States military itself, and
then we come full-circle sixty years on, and we find that, with Mr.
Rumsfeld=92s hand, abuse is authorized and permitted by the US military
in plain violation of international rules, but also in plain violation
of President Lincoln=92s disposition, going back to 1863, that the US
doesn=92t do cruelty.
But the case is an im****tant one. It=92s not a bang-on point, and I=92m
absolutely not drawing analogies. I=92m not saying that these lawyers
are equivalent to those lawyers or this regime is equivalent to that
regime. What I=92m interested in is the cir***stance, in when does a
lawyer cross a line into criminality?
And coming back to an earlier question that you raised, the European
judge and the European prosecutor that I met, when I laid out all the
materials for them, they came back with a most startling conclusion.
They said, =93Philippe, the bottom line of it is, there is no
distinction between the man or woman who interrogates and the man or
woman who authorizes by law an abusive interrogation. They are both
subject to investigation. They are both subject to prosecution.=94 And I
think that=92s the way the law has gone, and it=92s a law that is right,
and it is a law that the United States has helped put in place.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/8/torture_team_british_attorney_philippe_=
sands
=3D =3D =3D =3D
STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. COR****ATE MEDIA
IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON?
=3D =3D =3D =3D
=3D =3D =3D =3D
Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email
FOR MORE INFORMATION: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/
(peace)
http://economicdemocracy.org/eco/climate-summary.html
(Climate)
And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/
(general)
** New email: econdemocracy[at]gmail[dot]com
|
