The Curious Case of Scooter Libby
Dick Cheney, Douglas Feith, Eliot Abrams, George W. Bush, Iraq, Joseph Wilson, Judith Miller, Matt Cooper, Meet The Press, Muhammed Atta, Neocons, New York Times, Prague Meeting, Robert Luskin, Scooter Libby, Think-Tanks, Tim Russert, Valerie Plame, Viveca Novak, Yellowcake UraniumNoam Chomsky Steals William F. Buckley's Lunch and Then Eats It
Conservatives, Liberals, Noam Chomsky, Politics, William F. BuckleyPart Two
A Few Laps at the Indianapolis 500 | 2007
Andretti, CART, Christian Fittipaldi, Firestone, Goodyear, IndyCar, Long Beach Grand Prix, Mears, Open Wheel Racing, Pat Patrick, Paul Page, Paul Tracy, PenskeWaterboarding Used 266 Times on 2 Suspects
CIA, Rendition, TortureTHE NEW YORK TIMES
C.I.A. interrogators used waterboarding, the near-drowning technique that top Obama administration officials have described as illegal torture, 266 times on two key prisoners from Al Qaeda, far more than had been previously reported.
The C.I.A. officers used waterboarding at least 83 times in August 2002 against Abu Zubaydah, according to a 2005 Justice Department legal memorandum. Abu Zubaydah has been described as a Qaeda operative.
A former C.I.A. officer, John Kiriakou, told ABC News and other news media organizations in 2007 that Abu Zubaydah had undergone waterboarding for only 35 seconds before agreeing to tell everything he knew.
The 2005 memo also says that the C.I.A. used waterboarding 183 times in March 2003 against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The New York Times reported in 2007 that Mr. Mohammed had been barraged more than 100 times with harsh interrogation methods, causing C.I.A. officers to worry that they might have crossed legal limits and to halt his questioning. But the precise number and the exact nature of the interrogation method was not previously known.
The release of the numbers is likely to become part of the debate about the morality and efficacy of interrogation methods that the Justice Department under the Bush administration declared legal even though the United States had historically treated them as torture.
President Obama plans to visit C.I.A. headquarters Monday and make public remarks to employees, as well as meet privately with officials, an agency spokesman said Sunday night. It will be his first visit to the agency, whose use of harsh interrogation methods he often condemned during the presidential campaign and whose secret prisons he ordered closed on the second full day of his presidency.
C.I.A. officials had opposed the release of the interrogation memo, dated May 30, 2005, which was one of four secret legal memos on interrogation that Mr. Obama ordered to be released last Thursday.
Mr. Obama said C.I.A. officers who had used waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods with the approval of the Justice Department would not be prosecuted. He has repeatedly suggested that he opposes Congressional proposals for a “truth commission” to examine Bush administration counterterrorism programs, including interrogation and warrantless eavesdropping.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has begun a yearlong, closed-door investigation of the C.I.A. interrogation program, in part to assess claims of Bush administration officials that brutal treatment, including slamming prisoners into walls, shackling them in standing positions for days and confining them in small boxes, was necessary to get information.
The fact that waterboarding was repeated so many times may raise questions about its effectiveness, as well as about assertions by Bush administration officials that their methods were used under strict guidelines.
A footnote to another 2005 Justice Department memo released Thursday said waterboarding was used both more frequently and with a greater volume of water than the C.I.A. rules permitted.
The new information on the number of waterboarding episodes came out over the weekend when a number of bloggers, including Marcy Wheeler of the blog emptywheel, discovered it in the May 30, 2005, memo.
The sentences in the memo containing that information appear to have been redacted from some copies but are visible in others. Initial news reports about the memos in The New York Times and other publications did not include the numbers.
Michael V. Hayden, director of the C.I.A. for the last two years of the Bush administration, would not comment when asked on the program “Fox News Sunday” if Mr. Mohammed had been waterboarded 183 times. He said he believed that that information was still classified.
A C.I.A. spokesman, reached Sunday night, also would not comment on the new information.
Mr. Hayden said he had opposed the release of the memos, even though President Obama has said the techniques will never be used again, because they would tell Al Qaeda “the outer limits that any American would ever go in terms of interrogating an Al Qaeda terrorist.”
He also disputed an article in The New York Times on Saturday that said Abu Zubaydah had revealed nothing new after being waterboarded, saying that he believed that after unspecified “techniques” were used, Abu Zubaydah revealed information that led to the capture of another terrorist suspect, Ramzi Binalshibh.
The Times article, based on information from former intelligence officers who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Abu Zubaydah had revealed a great deal of information before harsh methods were used and after his captors stripped him of clothes, kept him in a cold cell and kept him awake at night. The article said interrogators at the secret prison in Thailand believed he had given up all the information he had, but officials at headquarters ordered them to use waterboarding.
He revealed no new information after being waterboarded, the article said, a conclusion that appears to be supported by a footnote to a 2005 Justice Department memo saying the use of the harshest methods appeared to have been “unnecessary” in his case.
RealTime With Bill Maher | April 18, 2008
Politics, TullycastJane Hamsher Calls Bullshit On Rahm Emmanuel's 'This Week' Appearance
Jay Bybee, John Yoo, Rahm Emanuel, Steven Bradbury, Torture, WaterboardingJANE HAMSHER Gets it done; as usual…
Because someone has to
Rahm on This Week:
STEPHANOPOLOUS: The President has ruled out prosecutions of CIA officials who believed they were following the law. Does he believe the officials who devised the policies should be immune from prosecution?
RAHM: Yeah, what he believes is, look, as you saw in that statement he wrote. And I think, just take a step back. That he came up with this, and he worked on this for four weeks. Wrote that statement Wednesday night, after he made his decision, and dictated what he wanted to see and then Thursday morning I saw him in the office, he was still editing it. He believes that people in good faith were operating with the guidance they were provided. They shouldn’t be prosecuted.
STEPHANOPOLOUS: But what bout those who devised the policies?
RAHM: But those who devised the policies –he believes that they were — should not be prosecuted either. And it’s not the place that we go — as he said in that letter, and I really recommend that people look at that full statement. Not the letter, the statement. In that second paragraph: This is not a time for retribution. It’s a time for reflection. It is not a time to use our energy and our time in looking back, and in a sense of anger and retribution. We have a lot to do to protect America. What people need to know, this practice and technique, we don’t useany more. He banned it.
Is that truly what the administration thinks? That people who want to see those who illegally led the country down the road of torture held to account are simply “looking back” in “anger” and “retribution”? Fifty percent of the country favor such investigations, including 69% of Democrats and a majority of independents. Is Rahm saying that President Obama believes they’re nothing more than an angry, vindictive mob, and that nobody could possibly have a rational basis for believing that our laws should be enforced?
Manfred Nowak, the United Nations top torture investigator, says that treaties entered into by the United States require criminal investigations:
The United States, like all other states that are part of the U.N. convention against torture, is committed to conducting criminal investigations of torture and to bringing all persons against whom there is sound evidence to court.
How does Rahm rationalize the President’s stated goal to “restore our moral standing” in the world with thumbing our noses at the international agreements we’ve entered into? Is there an “except when we don’t feel like it” clause?
The United States has 5% of the world’s population, but nearly 25% of its prisoners. There is something terribly inconsistent about a Senior Administration official like Rahm Emanuel insisting that an elite few should not be subject to our laws, and that people who take issue with this have no higher motive than counterproductive rage.
Sign the petition telling Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate torture here.
$12 Million Later and Still No Senator From Minnesota
Al Franken, Minnesota Senate, Norm ColemanSpending by Franken and Coleman since Election Day amounts to about one-fourth of the overall cost of the Senate race.
April 15, 2009
DFLer Al Franken and Republican Norm Coleman have spent roughly $12 million combined since the November election to pay for the recount and ensuing trial in their protracted U.S. Senate race.
Federal election reports filed Wednesday show that each campaign has put about $6 million into the legal fight, in which Franken emerged with a 312-vote lead after Monday’s ruling by the judges in the election trial.
Franken has also come out slightly ahead in the most recent money chase. He raised $3.3 million from the beginning of this year to March 31. Coleman took in $3 million.
Spending since Nov. 4, Election Day, accounts for about one-fourth of the overall cost of the race, in which each side has spent at least $24 million.
As Coleman takes his election challenge to the Minnesota Supreme Court, fundraising has been fueled by recent Federal Election Commission (FEC) decisions allowing for national and state party organizations to help raise money to for legal expenses.
Both campaigns have been raising money directly at a furious pace, aided by joint fundraising committees with their parties that allow well-heeled donors to surpass normal contribution limits.
Meanwhile, Democrats continued to turn up the pressure on Coleman, arguing that he should drop his appeal and concede for the good of the state. The national party brandished a new poll Wednesday that finds that most Minnesotans say Coleman should step aside.
In the survey, conducted by Public Policy Polling, 63 percent of respondents said Coleman should drop his planned state Supreme Court appeal, while 37 percent said he should press ahead.
Public Policy Polling is a Raleigh, N.C., firm with Democratic ties that conducts surveys of state and national political races.
“We conduct one or two polls a week on hot races going on in the news, and Minnesota seemed to fit that,” said company spokesman Tom Jensen.
The Democratic National Committee (DNC), which has kept up a drumbeat of calls for Coleman to concede, distributed the poll results Wednesday.
“We realized people wanted to give Norm Coleman a chance to go through the legal process, but this poll shows that they’ve decided enough is enough,” said DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan.
In a statement, Coleman spokesman Tom Erickson said: “The equal protection and due process rights of 4,400 Minnesota citizens to have their votes counted is not going to be decided by a liberal polling firm. … We intend to ensure that no voter is left behind, even if Al Franken and Democrats would rather act as though they no longer exist.”
Erickson was alluding to 4,400 absentee ballots that Coleman argues were improperly excluded from the vote count and will be a major part of his appeal.
Public Policy interviewed 805 Minnesota voters on Tuesday and Wednesday with automated, recorded phone calls. The poll’s margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
The DNC also unveiled a new radio ad, set to run on Twin Cities talk radio stations.
“Enough is enough,” the ad’s announcer declares, echoing a sound bite offered Tuesday by Tim Kaine, the DNC chairman.
“Minnesota deserves two senators and voters deserve to have their verdict stand without delay,” the ad continues. “Call Norm Coleman … Tell him that it is time to concede.”
The DNC didn’t disclose the extent of its ad buy, but Minnesota Public Radio reported that the ad would run on KSTP-AM and AM950.
Staff writer Kevin Duchschere contributed to this report. kdiaz@startribune.com • 202-408-2753 vonste@startribune.com • 612-673-7184