This is the one I was referring to. From April 1.
This shows that the trail of torture at Guantánamo does not begin and end with a few ‘bad apples’ from a Guard unit from West Virginia. Rather, it was authorized “from the top.”
The Green Light
As the first anniversary of 9/11 approached, and a prized Guantánamo detainee wouldn’t talk, the Bush administration’s highest-ranking lawyers argued for extreme interrogation techniques, circumventing international law, the Geneva Conventions, and the army’s own Field Manual. The attorneys would even fly to Guantánamo to ratchet up the pressure—then blame abuses on the military.
The abuse, rising to the level of torture, of those captured and detained in the war on terror is a defining feature of the presidency of George W. Bush. Its military beginnings, however, lie not in Abu Ghraib, as is commonly thought, or in the “rendition” of prisoners to other countries for questioning, but in the treatment of the very first prisoners at Guantánamo. Starting in late 2002 a detainee bearing the number 063 was tortured over a period of more than seven weeks. In his story lies the answer to a crucial question: How was the decision made to let the U.S. military start using coercive interrogations at Guantánamo?
The Bush administration has always taken refuge behind a “trickle up” explanation: that is, the decision was generated by military commanders and interrogators on the ground. This explanation is false. The origins lie in actions taken at the very highest levels of the administration—by some of the most senior personal advisers to the president, the vice president, and the secretary of defense. At the heart of the matter stand several political appointees—lawyers—who, it can be argued, broke their ethical codes of conduct and took themselves into a zone of international criminality, where formal investigation is now a very real option. This is the story of how the torture at Guantánamo began, and how it spread. [more at Vanity Fair]
If these are not high crimes and misdemeanors, what is? I mean, besides oral sex in the White House?
Can we impeach them now? Please? And reserve something especially odious for John Yoo?
Do books about the recession lessen the recession in the book industry?
2-parts airing March 24 and 25
A recent Esquire piece on Admiral William J. Fallon, entitled “The Man Between War and Peace,” laid out differences in views on Iran and other issues between Fallon and the Bush administration and suggested that if Fallon is fired, it could indicate a push for war with Iran.
Yesterday Admiral Fallon, who is the top American commander in the middle east, announced he will be retiring early.
Coincidence? I don’t think so either