tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post8222195910232265001..comments2023-07-27T04:31:05.930-07:00Comments on ortizfeliciano: Memorandos sobre tortura e interceptación de comunicaciones. rev. 25/04/09Roberto Ortiz-Felicianohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10712890752942849773noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-57769719769555328672010-03-13T07:08:09.458-08:002010-03-13T07:08:09.458-08:00Karl Rove defiende la tortura
Dice que son 'té...Karl Rove defiende la tortura<br />Dice que son 'técnicas que funcionaron' para mantener la seguridad nacional. <br /><br />El ex asesor de George W. Bush, Karl Rove, defendió el uso de métodos severos de interrogación y se pronunció orgulloso de los datos de inteligencia obtenidos por Estados Unidos a través del ahogamiento simulado (waterboarding, en inglés)<br />Este tormento, que simula el ahogamiento del interrogado, fue prohibido cuando Barack Obama asumió la presidencia estadounidense.<br />El ex asesor de la Casa Blanca Karl Rove señaló a la BBC que las instrucciones redactadas por abogados del gobierno fueron suficientemente específicas para evitar abusos.<br /><br />"No estoy de acuerdo con el uso de la palabra 'tortura'. Esos memorándums fueron cuidadosamente diseñados para describir lo que es apropiado y lo que no es apropiado bajo nuestras leyes y compromisos internacionales. Y eso funcionó", dijo Rove en la entrevista.<br />"Mantuvo a Estados Unidos seguro. Mantuvo a nuestros aliados seguros. Se descubrieron complots como el de los que buscaban estrellar aviones contra Heathrow (aeropuerto británico) y la ciudad de Londres; complots para estrellar un avión contra el edificio más alto de Los Ángeles y derribar simultáneamente a dos aviones sobre el Pacífico.<br /><br />"Esos métodos funcionaron al quebrar el espíritu de blancos de alto perfil que sabían de cosas, que nos entregaron (información) que nos permitió proteger a nuestro país y a nuestros amigos", agregó.<br />Algunos de los métodos a los que Rove se refiere, además del ‘waterboarding’, son privación de sueño y forzar a los detenidos a mantener posturas extremas que causan incomodidad y dolor.<br />Ejemplos específicos<br />El ex funcionario citó casos específicos. "El personal militar estadounidense se somete al tormento (de ahogamiento simulado) anualmente en cursos especiales de entrenamiento de supervivencia y para huir.<br />"Y pasan por una experiencia con mucho menos restricciones que el waterboarding que se aplicó en el caso de tres detenidos de alto perfil. Después que se desmoronaron y empezaron a cooperar, nos dieron información increíblemente valiosa que protegió a EE.UU. a nuestros aliados", señaló Rove.<br />El ex funcionario reconoció en su recién publicado libro Courage and Consequence (Valor y consecuencias) que el hecho de no haberse encontrado armas de destrucción masiva en Irak dañó la reputación de Bush.<br />En sus memorias Rove escribió que debería haber actuado de forma más enérgica para rechazar aseveraciones de que el ex mandatario mintió acerca del arsenal de Saddam Hussein.<br />Sin embargo, el ex estratega político y actual analista conservador calificó los logros del gobierno de Bush como "impresionantes, duraderos y significativos".<br /><br />http://www.elnuevodia.com/karlrovedefiendelatortura-684959.htmlKarl Rove defiende la torturahttp://www.elnuevodia.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-27737903657148074182009-05-03T15:46:00.000-07:002009-05-03T15:46:00.000-07:00Waterboarding, Interrogations: The CIA's $1,00...Waterboarding, Interrogations: The CIA's $1,000 a Day Specialists<br />New Focus on Two Retired Military Psychologists Called the 'Architects' of the CIA's Techniques<br />By BRIAN ROSS, MATTHEW COLE, and JOSEPH RHEE<br /><br />April 30, 2009—<br /><br />As the secrets about the CIA's interrogation techniques continue to come out, there's new information about the frequency and severity of their use, contradicting an 2007 ABC News report, and a new focus on two private contractors who were apparently directing the brutal sessions that President Obama calls torture.<br /><br />According to current and former government officials, the CIA's secret waterboarding program was designed and assured to be safe by two well-paid psychologists now working out of an unmarked office building in Spokane, Washington.<br /><br />Bruce Jessen and Jim Mitchell, former military officers, together founded Mitchell Jessen and Associates.<br /><br />Both men declined to speak to ABC News citing non-disclosure agreements with the CIA. But sources say Jessen and Mitchell together designed and implemented the CIA's interrogation program.<br /><br />"It's clear that these psychologists had an important role in developing what became the CIA's torture program," said Jameel Jaffer, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union.<br /><br />Former U.S. officials say the two men were essentially the architects of the CIA's 10-step interrogation plan that culminated in waterboarding.<br /><br />Associates say the two made good money doing it, boasting of being paid a $1,000 a day by the CIA to oversee the use of the techniques on top al Qaeda suspects at CIA secret sites.<br /><br />"The whole intense interrogation concept that we hear about, is essentially their concepts," according to Col. Steven Kleinman, an Air Force interrogator.<br /><br />Both Mitchell and Jessen were previously involved in the U.S. military program to train pilots how to survive behind enemy lines and resist brutal tactics if captured.<br /><br />Mitchell and Jessen Lacked Experience in Actual Interrogations<br /><br />But it turns out neither Mitchell nor Jessen had any experience in conducting actual interrogations before the CIA hired them.<br /><br />"They went to two individuals who had no interrogation experience," said Col. Kleinman. "They are not interrogators."<br /><br />The new documents show the CIA later came to learn that the two psychologists' waterboarding "expertise" was probably "misrepresented" and thus, there was no reason to believe it was "medically safe" or effective. The waterboarding used on al Qaeda detainees was far more intense than the brief sessions used on U.S. military personnel in the training classes.<br /><br />"The use of these tactics tends to increase resistance on the part of the detainee to cooperating with us. So they have the exact opposite effect of what you want," said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich).<br /><br />The new memos also show waterboarding was used "with far greater frequency than initially indicated" to even those in the CIA.<br /><br />Abu Zubaydah was water boarded at least 83 times and Khalid Sheikh Mohamed at least 183 times.<br /><br />Former CIA Officer John Kiriakou Says Waterboarding is Torture<br /><br />That contradicts what former CIA officer John Kiriakou, who led the Zubaydah capture team, told ABC News in 2007 when he first revealed publicly that waterboarding had been used.<br /><br />He said then, based on top secret reports he had access to, that Zubaydah had only been water boarded once and then freely talked.<br /><br />Kiriakou now says he too was stunned to learn how often Zubaydah was waterboarded, in what Kiriakou says was clearly torture.<br /><br />"When I spoke to ABC News in December 2007 I was aware of Abu Zubaydah being waterboarded on one occasion," said Kiriakou. "It was after this one occasion that he revealed information related to a planned terrorist attack. As I said in the original interview, my information was second-hand. I never participated in the use of enhanced techniques on Abu Zubaydah or on any other prisoner, nor did I witness the use of such techniques."<br /><br />A federal judge in New York is currently considering whether or not to make public the written logs of the interrogation sessions.<br /><br />The tapes were destroyed by the CIA, but the written logs still exist, although the CIA is fighting their release.<br /><br />A CIA spokesperson declined to comment for this report, except to note that the agency's terrorist interrogation program was guided by legal opinions from the Department of Justice.<br /><br />Matthew Cole is a freelance national security reporter. His book, about the CIA rendition program, will be published later this year by Simon & Schuster.<br /><br />This post has been updated.<br /><br />http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=7471217<br /><br />Report: Two Psychologists Responsible for Devising CIA Interrogation Methods<br />ABC News reports that former military officers Bruce Jessen and Jim Mitchell were paid by the CIA to oversee the waterboarding techniques used against high-profile detainees to extract information in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York City and the Pentagon.<br /><br />Two psychologists are responsible for designing the CIA's program of waterboarding suspected terrorists and for assuring the government the program was safe, according to an ABC News report.<br /><br />Former military officers Bruce Jessen and Jim Mitchell had an "important role in developing what became the CIA's torture program," Jameel Jaffer, an attorney with the ACLU, told ABC News.<br /><br />Jessen and Mitchell were previously involved in the U.S. military program to train pilots how to resist brutal tactics if captured -- but Col. Steven Kleinman, an Air Force interrogator, told ABC News that the two never had experience conducting actual interrogations before the CIA hired them.<br /><br />"They went to two individuals who had no interrogation experience," Col. Kleinman told ABC News.<br /><br />Associates say Jessen and Mitchell were paid up to $1,000 a day by the CIA to oversee the techniques used against high-profile detainees to extract information in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York City and the Pentagon.<br /><br />The revelation comes as Congressional Democrats turn up the pressure on the Obama administration to appoint a special counsel to start a criminal investigation into harsh interrogations of terror suspects and who authorized them. The debate was sparked by the Obama administration this month releasing four Bush-era memos outlining legal guidelines for the CIA's interrogation methods.<br /><br />Obama has said it would be up to Attorney General Eric Holder to determine whether "those who formulated those legal decisions" should be prosecuted. The methods, described in the Bush-era memos, included slamming detainees against walls and subjecting them to simulated drowning, known as waterboarding.<br /><br />The president said he would not seek to punish CIA officers and others who carried out interrogations.<br /><br />http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/30/report-psychologists-responsible-devising-cia-torture-program/abcnewsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-27744589098627177132009-04-28T19:18:00.000-07:002009-04-28T19:18:00.000-07:00AI critica que Obama no pida responsabilidades por...AI critica que Obama no pida responsabilidades por las torturas de Guantánamo<br /><br />(miércoles, 29 de abril) Londres, 28 abr (EFE).- Amnistía Internacional (AI) condenó hoy que la Administración de Barack Obama no haya llevado aún ante los tribunales a todos los responsables de los actos de tortura y violación de derechos humanos cometidos en la prisión de Guantánamo.<br /><br />En un informe que evalúa las decisiones del presidente de EEUU en sus primeros cien días de mandato en materia antiterrorista, AI cree que, a pesar de los avances registrados con respecto al Ejecutivo de su antecesor, George W. Bush, aún se observan actitudes "contradictorias".<br /><br />Entre esas actitudes, la organización pro derechos humanos cita la de poner fecha de caducidad a Guantánamo sin llevar ante la Justicia a los responsables de las torturas perpetradas en ese centro detención que EEUU tiene en Cuba.<br /><br />"Las acciones emprendidas por el presidente Obama, menos de 48 horas después de haber tomado posesión de su cargo, para cerrar Guantánamo en el plazo de un año o poner fin a las detenciones secretas de la CIA fueron acogidas con gran satisfacción", señala Irene Khan, secretaria general de la organización.<br /><br />Sin embargo, Khan puntualiza que este cambio de tendencia no se completará hasta que el Gobierno "no siente ante los tribunales a todos los responsables de estos actos de tortura y proporcione a las víctimas la posibilidad real de resarcirse".<br /><br />Bajo el título "Mensajes contradictorios: medidas antiterroristas y derechos humanos. Los 100 primeros días del Presidente Obama", el informe de AI, difundido desde su sede en Londres, recuerda al mandatario estadounidense que aún tiene "medidas pendientes" por tomar respecto a la base aérea de Bagram (Afganistán).<br /><br />En ese lugar, indica la organización no gubernamental (ONG), permanecen recluidos más de 500 individuos sin cargos, juicio, ni posibilidad de revisión de su situación.<br /><br />Asimismo, Amnistía considera "contradictorio" que el Gobierno de Obama haya clausurado los centros secretos de detención de la CIA, pero haya dejado abierta la posibilidad de que la agencia "secuestre y recluya a personas en centros transitorios a corto plazo".<br /><br />A juicio de AI, tampoco tiene sentido promulgar una orden ejecutiva que prohíbe el uso de la tortura mientras se aprueba el Manual de Campo del Ejército de EEUU, que permite aislar y privar de de sueño a los detenidos por largos períodos de tiempo.<br /><br />AI subraya que la desaparición de la terminología más belicista de la era Bush -quien acuñó el término de "guerra contra el terrorismo"-, no ha supuesto un cambio real en el modo de actuación, ya que "la lucha contra el terrorismo sigue basándose en el derecho aplicable en la guerra, en vez de en la justicia penal y los derechos humanos".<br /><br />Como balance de los primeros cien días de Obama en la Casa Blanca, la secretaria general de Amnistía señala que "se han producido importantes avances, aunque aún quedan muchas medidas por tomar".<br /><br />"La cuestión -concluye Khan- es si la promesa de cambio del presidente Obama y las medidas iniciales tomadas por su Gobierno suponen un avance significativo y duradero hacia el respeto a los derechos humanos en la lucha contra el terrorismo".<br /><br />http://www.elconfidencial.com/cache/2009/04/28/18_critica_obama_responsabilidades_torturas_guantanamo.htmlRoberto Ortiz-Felicianohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10712890752942849773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-6218910733864263832009-04-28T09:57:00.000-07:002009-04-28T09:57:00.000-07:00Why We Must Prosecute
Torture Is a Breach Of Inter...Why We Must Prosecute<br />Torture Is a Breach Of International Law<br />By Mark J. McKeon<br />Tuesday, April 28, 2009 <br />On Sept. 11, 2001, when the twin towers were hit, I was sitting in a meeting in The Hague discussing what should be included in an indictment against Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes in Bosnia. I was an American lawyer serving as a prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and there was no doubt that Milosevic should be indicted for his responsibility for the torture and cruel treatment of prisoners. As the head of state at the time those crimes were committed, Milosevic bore ultimate responsibility for what happened under his watch. <br />While at The Hague, I felt myself standing in a long line of American prosecutors working for a world where international standards restricted what one nation could do to another during war, stretching back to at least Justice Robert Jackson at the Nuremberg trials. Those standards protected our own soldiers and citizens. They were also moral and right. So I didn't understand why, a few months after the attacks in 2001, the Bush administration withdrew its consent to joining the International Criminal Court. Wasn't accountability for war crimes one of the things America stood for? Although staying with the court did mean that the United States would be subject to being charged in that court, how likely was that to happen? Surely we would never do these things. And, in any event, the court could only assume jurisdiction over a person whose own government refused to prosecute him; surely, that would never happen in the United States. <br />And yet, seven years later, here we are debating whether we should hold senior Bush administration officials accountable for things they have done in the "war on terror." <br />In 2001 and the following few years, we at the international tribunal built a strong court case against Milosevic. We presented evidence that he had effective control over soldiers and paramilitaries who tortured prisoners, and did worse. We brought into court reports of atrocities that had been delivered to Milosevic by international organizations to show his knowledge of what was happening under his command. And we watched as other heads of state were indicted for similar crimes, including Charles Taylor in Liberia and, of course, Saddam Hussein in Iraq. <br />At the same time, I watched with horror the changes that were happening back home. The events are now well known: Abu Ghraib; Guantanamo; secret "renditions" of prisoners to countries where interrogators were not afraid to get rough; secret CIA prisons where there appeared to be no rules. I tried to answer, as best I could, the questions from my international colleagues at The Hague about what was happening in and to my country. But as each revelation topped the last, I soon found myself without words. <br />I hope that the United States has turned the page on those times and is returning to the values that sustained our country for so many years. But we cannot expect to regain our position of leadership in the world unless we hold ourselves to the same standards that we expect of others. That means punishing the most senior government officials responsible for these crimes. We have demanded this from other countries that have returned from walking on the dark side; we should expect no less from ourselves. <br />To say that we should hold ourselves to the same standards of justice that we applied to Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein is not to say that the level of our leaders' crimes approached theirs. Thankfully, there is no evidence of that. And yet, torture and cruel treatment are as much violations of international humanitarian law as are murder and genocide. They demand a judicial response. We cannot expect the rest of humanity to live in a world that we ourselves are not willing to inhabit. <br />The writer was a prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia from 2001 to 2004 and a senior prosecutor from 2004 to 2006. <br /><br />http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/27/AR2009042702693_pf.html<br /><br />On Higher Ground, but Not Safer<br />By Richard Cohen<br />Tuesday, April 28, 2009 <br />On April 16, President Obama released the now-infamous torture memos along with a covering statement that said the CIA's old interrogation methods not only failed to "make us safer" but undermined "our moral authority." A week later, a woman holding the hand of a child walked into a throng in Baghdad and blew herself up. Apparently she had not heard of our new moral authority. <br />That term -- "moral authority" -- gets used a lot. There is such a thing, I suppose, although a suicide bomber probably thinks he or she has it in abundance. Whatever it may be, however, it is an awfully thin reed upon which to construct a foreign policy. I, for one, am glad we're no longer torturing anyone, but ceasing this foul practice will not in any way make Americans safer. We prohibit torture for other reasons. <br />Yet the debate over torture has been infected with silly arguments about utility: whether it works or not. Of course it works -- sometimes or rarely, but if a proverbial bomb is ticking, that may just be the one time it works. I refer you to the 1995 interrogation by Philippine authorities of Abdul Hakim Murad, an al-Qaeda terrorist who served up extremely useful information about a plot to blow up airliners when he was told that he was about to be turned over to Israel's Mossad. As George Orwell suggested in "1984," everyone has his own idea of torture. <br />If the threat of torture works -- if it has worked at least once -- then it follows that torture itself would work. Some in the intelligence field, including a former CIA director, say it does, and I assume they say this on the basis of evidence. They can't all be fools or knaves. This is also the position of Dick Cheney, who can sometimes be both, but in this, at least, he has some support. <br />America should repudiate torture not because it is always ineffective -- nothing is always anything -- or because others loathe it but because it degrades us and runs counter to our national values. It is a statement of principle, somewhat similar to why we do not tap all phones or stop and frisk everyone under the age of 28. Those measures would certainly reduce crime, but they are abhorrent to us. <br />But it is important to understand that abolishing torture will not make us safer. Terrorists do not give a damn about our morality, our moral authority or what one columnist called "our moral compass." George Bush was certainly disliked in much of the world, but the Sept. 11 attacks were planned while Bill Clinton was in office, and he offended no one with the possible exception of the Christian right. Indeed, he went around the world apologizing for America's misdeeds -- slavery, in particular. No terrorist turned back as a result. <br />If Obama thinks the world will respond to his new torture policy, he is seriously misguided. Indeed, he has made things a bit easier for terrorists who now know what will not happen to them if they get caught. And by waffling over whether he will entertain the prosecution of Bush-era Justice Department lawyers (and possibly CIA interrogators as well), he has shown agents in the field that he is behind them, oh, about 62 percent of the time. <br />The horror of Sept. 11 resides in me like a dormant pathogen. It took a long time before I could pass a New York fire station -- the memorials still fresh -- without tearing up. I vowed vengeance that day -- yes, good Old Testament-style vengeance -- and that ember glows within me still. I know that nothing Obama did this month about torture made America safer. <br />But as I was reading the Bush administration's torture memos, I was also finishing Richard J. Evans's "The Third Reich at War." It is the last of his masterful trilogy on Nazi Germany and, like his two previous works, contains the sort of detail that assaults the eyes, overwhelms reason and instructs what we -- yes, ordinary people -- were capable of doing. <br />I know it is offensive to compare almost anyone or anything to the Nazis, but the Bush-era memos struck me as echoes from the past. Here, once again, were the squalid efforts of legal toadies to justify the unjustifiable. Here, again, was a lesson that needs constant refreshing: Before you can torture anyone, you must first torture the law. When that happens, we are all on the rack. <br /><br />http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/27/AR2009042702692_pf.htmlThe Washington Posthttp://www.washingtonpost.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-86087919920078936202009-04-26T06:10:00.000-07:002009-04-26T06:10:00.000-07:00New revelations on Bush Admin.'s so-called ...New revelations on Bush Admin.'s so-called 'torture policies'<br /><br />Posted: April 25, 2009 11:49 PM/Updated: April 25, 2009 11:49 PM <br /><br />By Jeff Ferrell<br /><br />SHREVEPORT, LA (KSLA) - There's yet another revelation about so-called "torture tactics" used during the Bush administration.<br /><br />This time, it involves the CIA Inspector General who found 'no proof' that harsh interrogation techniquqes prevented any - quote - "specific imminent attacks." That's according to de-classified Justice Department memos, and reported this weekend by McClatchy newspapers.<br /><br />This latest fact further undercuts claims by former Vice President Dick Cheney. He's now requesting the government to de-classify portions of two documents he kept in his own office, from three years after the techniques were stopped, as proof those harsh techniques worked. <br /><br />In related news, on Friday a federal judge ruled the CIA must turn over transcripts of 92-interrogation tapes the agency had destroyed, as part of a legal battle with the ACLU over a Freedom of Information request. <br /><br />And, as reported just days ago, the pentagon is also expected to release 2-thousand photos related to interrogations within the next month, also based on an ACLU FOIA request.<br /><br />And, the United Nations' top anti-torture envoy added insult to injury for a reluctant White House, saying Friday that the U.N. convention requires the United States to prosecute Bush adminstration lawyers who drafted the so-called "torture memos."<br /><br />http://www.ksla.com/global/story.asp?s=10250222&ClientType=Printablekslahttp://www.ksla.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-80634323624044937632009-04-25T11:24:00.000-07:002009-04-25T11:24:00.000-07:00Amid Outcry on Memo, Signer's Private Regret
F...Amid Outcry on Memo, Signer's Private Regret<br />Friends Say Judge Wasn't Proud of Outcome<br /><br />By Karl Vick<br />Washington Post Staff Writer<br />Saturday, April 25, 2009 <br /><br /><br /><br />LAS VEGAS -- On a Saturday night in May last year, Jay S. Bybee hosted dinner for 35 at a Las Vegas restaurant. The young people seated around him had served as his law clerks in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, the post Bybee had assumed after two turbulent years at the Justice Department, where as head of the Office of Legal Counsel he signed the legal justifications for harsh interrogations that have become known as the "torture memos." <br /><br />Five years along in his new life as a federal judge, Bybee gathered the lawyers and their dates for a reunion, telling them he was proud of the legal work they had together produced. <br /><br />And then, according to two of his guests, Bybee added that he wished he could say the same about his previous position. <br /><br />It was, in the private room of a public restaurant, the kind of joyless judgment that some friends and associates say the jurist arrived at well before the public release of four additional memos last week and the resulting uproar that has engulfed Washington. One of the documents, dated Aug. 1, 2002, offered a helpfully narrow definition of torture to the CIA and soon became known as the "Bybee memo," because it bore his signature. <br /><br />"I've heard him express regret at the contents of the memo," said a fellow legal scholar and longtime friend, who spoke on the condition of anonymity while offering remarks that might appear as "piling on." "I've heard him express regret that the memo was misused. I've heard him express regret at the lack of context -- of the enormous pressure and the enormous time pressure that he was under. And anyone would have regrets simply because of the notoriety." <br /><br />That notoriety worsened this week as the documents -- detailing the acceptable application of waterboarding, "walling," sleep deprivation and other procedures the Bush administration called "enhanced interrogation methods" -- prompted calls from human rights advocates and other critics for criminal investigations of the government lawyers who generated them. <br /><br />Of the three former Justice Department lawyers associated with the memos, the public's attention has focused particularly harshly on Bybee because of his position as a sitting federal judge; John C. Yoo, who largely wrote the Bybee memo, returned to academic life, and Steven G. Bradbury, who signed three memos, resumed private practice at the end of the Bush administration. <br /><br />Democratic lawmakers, human rights groups and others have called for Congress to impeach Bybee, complaining that his 2003 Senate confirmation came more than a year before his role in the memos was known. "If the Bush administration and Mr. Bybee had told the truth, he never would have been confirmed," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), adding that "the decent and honorable thing for him to do would be to resign." <br /><br />Democrats blocked the nomination of former Defense Department general counsel William J. Haynes II to the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit because of his role in supporting aggressive interrogations of military detainees. Haynes withdrew his nomination in 2007. <br /><br />The Justice Department withdrew the memos in the closing days of the Bush administration, and as its Office of Professional Responsibility investigates their origin -- and Congress, the American Bar Association and the United Nations mull inquiries -- Bybee is represented by Maureen E. Mahoney, a star litigator at Latham & Watkins. <br /><br />The aura of regret described by Bybee's friends and associates stands in contrast to the demeanor of Yoo, who served under Bybee and has maintained both a public profile and the fearless confidence that informed the memos. "Al-Qaeda in the months after 9/11 was going to carry out follow-on attacks on our country and its citizens," Yoo said Tuesday at a conference at Chapman University, the Orange, Calif., campus where he is teaching this spring. <br /><br />Bybee left the issue behind in 2003, returning to the gated suburban Las Vegas subdivision where he lives with his wife and children. He has said nothing publicly about the documents, a silence associates attributed to the restrictions on a sitting appellate judge, the possible advice of counsel and his own manner. <br /><br />"Judge Bybee tends to be a very private person, even when he's not in the newspapers," said Ann S. Jarrell, law librarian in the downtown U.S. courthouse where he keeps his chambers. Neither Bybee nor Mahoney would comment for this article. <br /><br />Still, in the years since the original Bybee memo was made public, his misgivings appeared evident to some in his immediate circle. <br /><br />"On the primary memo, that legitimated and defined torture, he just felt it got away from him," said the fellow scholar. "What I understand that to mean is, any lawyer, when he or she is writing about something very complicated, very layered, sometimes you can get it all out there and if you're not careful, you end up in a place you never intended to go. I think for someone like Jay, who's a formalist and a textualist, that's a particular danger." <br /><br />Tuan Samahon, a former clerk who recalled Bybee's remarks at the reunion dinner, said in an e-mail that the judge defended the legal reasoning behind the memos but not the policy decision. Bybee was disappointed by what was done to prisoners, saying that "the spirit of liberty has left the republic," Samahon said. <br /><br />"Jay would be the sort of lawyer who would say, 'Look, I'll give you the legal advice, but it's up to someone else to make the policy decision whether you implement it,' " said Randall Guynn, who roomed with Bybee at Brigham Young University and remains close. <br /><br />Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, which filed a freedom-of-information request regarding the latest memos, said any distinction Bybee may make between the logic of the memos and their application in secret prisons is theoretical at best. <br /><br />"I don't think the August 2002 memos reflect serious attempts to grapple in good faith with the law," Jaffer said. "These are documents that are meant to justify predetermined ends. They're not objective legal memos at all." <br /><br />Neither Guynn nor his brother, Steve, who also roomed with Bybee, recalled the judge distancing himself from the memos. But in the years since the first memo became public, Bybee left that sense with some. <br /><br />"I got the impression that he was not pleased with that bit of scholarship," said an associate who asked not be identified sharing private conversations. "I don't know that he 'owned it.' . . . The way he put it was: He was head of the OLC, and it was written, and he was not pleased with it." <br /><br />"But he signed it," said Chris Blakesley, a friend and fellow professor at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas Boyd School of Law who was outraged by the memo, which was leaked in May 2004. <br /><br />"The very evening it came out, we were going to dinner, and I told him how awful it was and I hoped he got a chance to repudiate it," Blakesley said. "He didn't say very much, and it was kind of awkward because our families were there." <br /><br />"Getting to the personal side of him, my sense is he would love to repudiate them all," Blakesley said. "Which gets to: Why'd you sign it?" <br /><br />Bybee had worked in Washington before. During the 1980s he was in the civil and legal policy divisions at the Justice Department, then served as associate White House counsel under President George H.W. Bush. <br /><br />During the Clinton years, he went from Louisiana State to UNLV, whose law school was so new it was located in an old elementary school across Tropicana Avenue. Through the thin walls of the annex, constitutional law specialist Tom McAffee would hear Bybee working the phones. But he struck none of his colleagues as an ideologue. <br /><br />"I have colleagues with reputations as indoctrinators," said McAffee, who has known Bybee 30 years and co-authored a book with him on the Ninth and 10th amendments. "Bybee was the opposite end of the spectrum. He was more interested in getting people to think about things." <br /><br />Students enjoyed Bybee, voting him professor of the year in 2000. "He was 'The Great Professor,' " said Briant S. Platt, who worked as his research assistant and later clerk. "He was quite self-deprecating: 'You get a root beer float in me and I'm a lot of fun.' " <br /><br />Bybee still occasionally teaches a course at UNLV on separation of powers. <br /><br />"The whole idea that the Constitution is based on a kind of wariness of mankind's tendency to grab power, that is an idea I got from Jay," McAffee said. "So the whole idea of uninhibited executive power, from him, does seem passing strange." <br /><br />Bybee's friends said he never sought the job at the Office of Legal Counsel. The reason he went back to Washington, Guynn said, was to interview with then-White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales for a slot that would be opening on the 9th Circuit when a judge retired. The opening was not yet there, however, so Gonzales asked, "Would you be willing to take a position at the OLC first?" Guynn said. <br /><br />Being unable to answer for what followed is "very frustrating," said Guynn, who spoke to Bybee before agreeing to be interviewed. <br /><br />"If they end up having hearings," he said, "they're going to have a very difficult time trying to square him with their judgments about the memo." <br /><br />Staff writer Ashley Surdin contributed to this report. <br /><br />http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403888_pf.htmlThe Washington Posthttp://www.washingtonpost.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-10917504350242289062009-04-25T05:58:00.000-07:002009-04-25T05:58:00.000-07:00April 25, 2009
Pentagon to Release Detainee Photos...April 25, 2009<br />Pentagon to Release Detainee Photos<br />By DAVID STOUT<br /><br />WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has agreed to release dozens of previously undisclosed photographs depicting the abuse by American military personnel of captives in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was disclosed on Friday.<br /><br />The pictures, showing incidents at a half-dozen prisons in addition to the notorious Abu Ghraib installation in Iraq, will be made available by May 28, the Defense Department and the American Civil Liberties Union said.<br /><br />“These photographs provide visual proof that prisoner abuse by U.S. personnel was not aberrational but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib,” said Amrit Singh, a staff attorney with the A.C.L.U., which sued for release of the pictures under the Freedom of Information Act.<br /><br />There were early reports that at least some of the new pictures show detainees being intimidated by American soldiers, sometimes at gunpoint, but Ms. Singh said it is not yet clear what kinds of scenes were captured, and by whose cameras.<br /><br />The Abu Ghraib photographs, showing prisoners naked or in degrading positions, sometimes with Americans posing smugly nearby, caused an uproar in the Arab world and concerns within the military that the actions of a relatively few service members were detracting from the sacrifice and valor of thousands of fighting men and women.<br /><br />Disclosure of the latest pictures “is critical for helping the public understand the scope and scale of prisoner abuse as well as for holding senior officials accountable for authorizing or permitting such abuse,” said Ms. Singh, who argued the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Manhattan.<br /><br />The exact number of new pictures was uncertain. In a letter to Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of United States District Court in Manhattan, Lev L. Dassin, the acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, said the Pentagon had agreed to release 44 photographs involved in the case, plus “a substantial number of other images” gathered by Army investigators.<br /><br />The Pentagon’s decision to release the pictures came after the A.C.L.U. prevailed at the Federal District Court level and before a panel of the Second Circuit. The full Second Circuit had declined to reconsider the panel’s decisions, and Robert Gibbs, the chief White House spokesman, said on Friday that Justice Department lawyers had concluded they would not be able to persuade the Supreme Court to review the case.<br /><br />The Pentagon had fought the release of the photographs, connected with investigations between 2003 and 2006, on the grounds that the release could endanger American military personnel overseas and that the privacy of detainees would be violated. But the Second Circuit, upholding Judge Hellerstein, said the public interest involved in release of the pictures outweighed a vague, speculative fear of danger to the American military or violation of the detainees’ privacy.<br /><br />A Pentagon spokesman, Bryan Whitman, said on Friday that while Defense Department officials are still concerned that release of the pictures could make the military’s mission more difficult, that consideration was less pressing now, given that Iraq is more stable than it was two or three years ago.<br /><br />Terry Mitchell, chief of the audio-visual unit in the Defense Department’s public affairs office, said on Friday that planning for making the pictures public was just getting under way, so he had no information on the format and timing of the release.<br /><br />When photographs of prisoners being abused at Abu Ghraib were made public in 2004, showing detainees being subjected to humiliation and intimidation, they caused widespread revulsion. Several military people were prosecuted and punished, but most of them were relatively low-ranking. (Mr. Whitman said more than 400 people had been disciplined for mistreating prisoners, with penalties ranging from prosecution and imprisonment to demotions or reprimands.)<br /><br />Ms. Singh of the A.C.L.U. said the release of more pictures will make clearer than ever the need for an independent investigation into abuse of prisoners “so the public can see for itself the offenses committed in its name,” and punishment of those responsible, including military officers and civilian officials.<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/25/us/politics/24web-prison.html?_r=1&ref=politics&pagewanted=printThe New York Timeshttp://www.nytimes.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-4334850453990520722009-04-24T18:08:00.000-07:002009-04-24T18:08:00.000-07:00Primero los memorandos, ahora las fotos
El Depart...Primero los memorandos, ahora las fotos<br /><br />El Departamento de Defensa de Estados Unidos publicará un número significativo de fotografías que muestran los presuntos abusos cometidos por el personal estadounidense en las prisiones de Irak y Afganistán, durante el gobierno de George W. Bush.<br /><br />Según indicó la Unión para las Libertades Civiles de EE.UU. (ACLU, por sus siglas en inglés), el presidente de EE.UU., Barack Obama, accedió a divulgar el material el 28 de mayo.<br /><br />Esta organización defensora de los derechos humanos había solicitado la publicación del material al gobierno anterior pero éste se había negado.<br /><br />La administración de Bush había argumentado, dice ACLU, que la divulgación de las fotografías generaría indignación en la sociedad y violaría además los derechos de los detenidos.<br /><br />En opinión de ACLU, las imágenes que muestran los abusos perpetrados en la prisión de Abu Grahib, en Irak, no constituyen una excepción sino que reflejan que se trató en realidad de una política sistemática y generalizada.<br />Presión<br /><br />El Pentágono informó que el número de fotografías que serán puestas a disposición del público ronda los cientos.<br /><br />La publicación de las imágenes, señala el corresponsal de la BBC en Washington Justin Webb, aumentará la presión sobre el gobierno de Obama para que evalúe la posibilidad de someter a juicio a los funcionarios del gobierno de Bush, por presunta complicidad en actos de tortura y maltrato de sospechosos de terrorismo y otros detenidos.<br /><br />Por el momento, añade Webb, la Casa Blanca parece estar resistiendo a la presión, pero las voces que claman por que se tomen medidas están aumentando.<br /><br />http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/lg/internacional/2009/04/090424_1829_fotos_lp.shtmlBBChttp://www.bbc.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-54740065955658121342009-04-24T18:06:00.000-07:002009-04-24T18:06:00.000-07:00Oficina del Pentágono advirtió sobre inutilidad de...Oficina del Pentágono advirtió sobre inutilidad de la tortura<br /> <br />24/04/2009 19:30 PM<br /> <br /><br />EFE. Washington. La oficina del Pentágono que concibió las duras técnicas de interrogatorio de presuntos terroristas advirtió en julio de 2002 que no producirían "información fidedigna", dijo hoy el diario The Washington Post en su página de internet.<br /><br />Además, en un documento enviado al representante jurídico del Pentágono esa oficina se refirió a los métodos de dureza extrema contra los interrogados directamente como "tortura", dijo la publicación.<br /><br />"El resultado no previsto de una política de EE.UU. que establezca la tortura de prisioneros es que podría ser usada por nuestros adversarios para justificar la tortura de estadounidenses capturados", dijo el documento de la Agencia Conjunta de Recuperación de Personal.<br /><br />Añadió que la necesidad de lograr información de "una fuente poco dispuesta" lo más rápidamente posible para evitar un atentado que pudiera causar muerte "se ha planteado como argumento convincente para el uso de la tortura".<br /><br />Pero también advirtió de que "el error inherente en esta estrategia es la presunción de que, mediante la tortura, el interrogador pueda extraer información confiable y precisa. La historia y una consideración de la conducta humana parecen refutar esta presunción".<br /><br />El documento fue incluido en una serie de memorandos que describieron en julio de 2002 técnicas de interrogatorio usadas contra estadounidenses en otros conflictos y sus efectos psicológicos.<br /><br />El diario indicó que no se sabe si llegó al conocimiento de las más altas autoridades en el Gobierno del presidente George W. Bush.<br /><br />Sin embargo, añadió, ofrece la prueba más clara conocida hasta ahora de que quienes formularon las duras técnicas de interrogatorio advirtieron sobre sus dudas en cuanto a la efectividad de aplicar "presiones intensas, físicas o psicológicas".<br /><br />En agosto de 2002 un memorando de la Oficina de Asesoramiento Jurídico del Departamento de Justicia autorizó la aplicación de 10 de las técnicas de interrogatorio recomendadas a Abu Zubaida, un miembro de Al Qaeda capturado en Pakistán en marzo de ese año.<br /><br />Según fuentes de inteligencia citadas por el diario, pese a esos métodos Abu Zubaida proporcionó escasa información útil acerca de los planes de la organización.<br /><br />Carl Levin, presidente del Comité de Servicios Armados del Senado, indicó que el documento fue ignorado deliberadamente o tal vez suprimido.<br /><br />"Es parte de una política de aplastar la disidencia", indicó el legislador demócrata que también denunció que hubo otras ocasiones en que se impidió u obstaculizó la investigación interna sobre el tratamiento dado a los detenidos.<br /><br />El debate sobre el uso de la tortura durante el anterior Gobierno de Bush se intensificó esta semana en Estados Unidos y hoy la Unión Americana de Libertades Civiles (ACLU) anunció que el mes próximo el Pentágono publicará un número "sustancial" de fotos que muestran los abusos a presos detenidos en cárceles de EE.UU. en Irak y Afganistán.<br /><br />Según la ACLU, el Gobierno del presidente Barack Obama accedió, en una carta enviada por el Departamento de Justicia, a que un juez federal de Nueva York divulgue las fotografías el 28 de mayo.<br /><br />La decisión del Gobierno de desclasificar esas imágenes dentro de un mes responde a una querella interpuesta por ACLU en 2004 con base en la Ley de Libertad de Información de EE.UU..<br /><br />El abogado de ACLU, Amrit Singh, señaló que las fotos "proveerán una prueba visual" de que los abusos a los presos "van mucho más allá de las paredes de Abu Ghraib", cerrada por EE.UU. tras conocerse los malos tratos practicados por soldados estadounidenses contra los detenidos en esa cárcel.<br /><br />La publicación de las imágenes ayudará además a los estadounidenses a comprender la necesidad de que los altos cargos del Gobierno de Bush "rindan cuentas" ante la Justicia por sus actos, dijo Singh.<br /><br />ACLU afirmó que la anterior Administración se negó a difundir esas fotografías alegando que generarían indignación en la sociedad y violarían los derechos de los detenidos. <br /><br />http://www.laverdad.com/detavance.php?CodAvance=14441Roberto Ortiz-Felicianohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10712890752942849773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-14272265791400086982009-04-24T16:36:00.000-07:002009-04-24T16:36:00.000-07:00Pentagon to Release Photos of Detainee Abuse Next ...Pentagon to Release Photos of Detainee Abuse Next Month<br /><br />By Ann Scott Tyson<br />Washington Post Staff Writer<br />Friday, April 24, 2009 3:35 PM<br /><br />The Pentagon, in response to a lawsuit, will end a Bush administration legal battle and release "hundreds" of photos showing abuse or alleged abuse of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan by U.S. personnel, according to defense officials and civil liberties advocates.<br /><br />The photographs, to be released by May 28, include 21 images depicting detainee abuse in facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan other than the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, as well as 23 other detainee abuse photos, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and a letter from the Justice Department sent to a federal court in New York yesterday.<br /><br />In addition, the Justice Department letter said "the government is also processing for release a substantial number of other images" contained in dozens of Army Criminal Investigation Division reports on the abuse.<br /><br />"This shows that the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was not aberrational but was systemic and widespread," said Amrit Singh, an ACLU staff attorney involved with the 2004 Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that led to the promise to release the photographs. "This will underscore calls for accountability for that abuse."<br /><br />Singh called for an independent investigation into torture and prisoner abuse and said it should be followed, if warranted, by criminal prosecutions.<br /><br />Pentagon officials disputed the charge that the photographs proved abuse was "systemic" in prisons run by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan, saying the images came from 60 of the military's own investigations of alleged abuse.<br /><br />"What it demonstrates is that when we find credible allegations of abuse, we investigate them," said a senior defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.<br /><br />The Pentagon has not stated when or how it will release the detainee photos, but defense officials said the initial 44 and possibly hundreds more would likely be made public close to the May 28 deadline.<br /><br />The Pentagon has noted that it investigates all allegations of detainee abuse, and since 2001 has taken more than 400 disciplinary actions against U.S. military personnel found to have been involved in such abuse.<br /><br />Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates yesterday said it was "unrealistic" for the government to try to keep photos of detainee abuse a secret, noting that the ACLU lawsuit and others like it have made public release practically unavoidable. "There is a certain inevitability, I believe, that much of this will eventually come out," Gates said. "Much has already come out."<br /><br />The Bush administration had argued that public disclosure of the photographs would unleash outrage andviolate Geneva Convention obligations on the treatment of detainees.<br /><br />But a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected such arguments in September 2008 and required disclosure of the photos because of a "significant public interest" in potential government misconduct.<br /><br />A Bush administration request that the full Court of Appeals rehear the case was denied March 11.<br /><br />Facing a deadline to either produce the photographs or take the appeal to the Supreme Court, where they believed chances of success were not high, Pentagon and Justice Department lawyers consulted last week and decided to comply with the lower court ruling.<br /><br />"This case had pretty much run its course. Legal options at this point had become pretty limited," said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman.<br /><br />At the same time, however, Gates voiced concern that the release of photos, along with disclosures of interrogation memos and other materials, could cause a "backlash" in the Middle East against U.S. troops serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.<br /><br />"I also was quite concerned, as you might expect, with the potential backlash in the Middle East and in the theaters where we're involved in conflict, and that it might have a negative impact on our troops," he said. <br /><br />http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042401516_pf.htmlThe Washington Posthttp://www.washingtonpost.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-14709508384062411652009-04-24T16:34:00.000-07:002009-04-24T16:34:00.000-07:00Document: Military Agency Referred to 'Torture,' Q...Document: Military Agency Referred to 'Torture,' Questioned Its Effectiveness<br /><br />By Peter Finn and Joby Warrick<br />Washington Post Staff Writers<br />Friday, April 24, 2009 5:22 PM<br /><br />The military agency that helped to devise harsh interrogation techniques for use against terrorism suspects referred to the application of extreme duress as "torture" in a July 2002 document sent to the Pentagon's chief lawyer and warned that it would produce "unreliable information."<br /><br />"The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel," says the document, an unsigned two-page attachment to a memo by the military's Joint Personnel Recovery Agency. Parts of the attachment, obtained in full by The Washington Post, were quoted in a Senate report on harsh interrogation released this week.<br /><br />It remains unclear whether the attachment reached high-ranking officials in the Bush administration. But the document offers the clearest evidence that has come to light so far that those who helped formulate the harsh interrogation techniques voiced early concerns about the effectiveness of applying severe physical or psychological pressure.<br /><br />The document was included among July 2002 memoranda that described severe interrogation techniques used against Americans in past conflicts and the psychological effects of such treatment. JPRA ran the military program known as Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE), which trains pilots and others to resist hostile questioning.<br /><br />The cautionary attachment was forwarded to the Pentagon's Office of the General Counsel as the administration finalized the legal underpinnings to a CIA interrogation program that would sanction the use of ten forms of coercion, including waterboarding, a technique that simulates drowning. The JPRA material was sent from the Pentagon to the CIA's acting General Counsel, John Rizzo, and on to the Justice Department, according to testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.<br /><br />An August 1, 2002, memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel authorized the use of the ten methods against Abu Zubaida, the nom de guerre of an al-Qaeda associate captured in Pakistan in March 2002. Former intelligence officials have recently contended that Abu Zubaida provided little useful information about the organization's plans.<br /><br />Senate investigators were unable to determine whether William J. Haynes II, the Pentagon's General Counsel in 2002, passed the cautionary memo to Rizzo or to other Bush administration officials reviewing the CIA's proposed program.<br /><br />Haynes declined to comment, as did Rizzo and the CIA. Jay. S. Bybee, who as an assistant Attorney General signed the Aug. 1, 2002, memo, did not respond to a request for comment.<br /><br />Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he believed the attachment was deliberately ignored and perhaps suppressed. Excerpts from the document appeared in a report on the treatment of detainees released this month by Levin's committee. The committee report says the attachment echoes JPRA warnings issued in late 2001.<br /><br />"It's part of a pattern of squelching dissent," said Levin, who said there were other instances in which internal reviews of detainee treatment were halted or undercut. "They didn't want to hear the down side."<br /><br />A former administration official said the National Security Council, which was briefed repeatedly that summer on the CIA's planned interrogation program by George Tenet, then Director of Central Intelligence, and agency lawyers, did not discuss the issues raised in the attachment.<br /><br />"That information was not brought to the attention of the principals," said the former administration official, who was involved in deliberations on interrogation policy who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. "That would have been relevant. The CIA did not present with pros and cons, or points or concern. They said this was safe and effective, and there was no alternative."<br /><br />The Aug. 1, 2002, memo on the interrogation of Abu Zubaida, draws from the JPRA's memo on psychological effects to conclude that while waterboarding constituted "a threat of imminent death" it did not cause "prolonged mental harm." Therefore, the Aug. 1, 2002, memo concluded, waterboarding "would not constitute torture within the meaning of the statute."<br /><br />But the JPRA's two-page attachment, titled "Operational Issues Pertaining to the Use of Physical/Psychological Coercion in Interrogation," questioned the effectiveness of employing extreme duress to obtain intelligence.<br /><br />"The requirement to obtain information from an uncooperative source as quickly as possible -- in time to prevent, for example, an impending terrorist attack that could result in loss of life -- has been forwarded as a compelling argument for the use of torture," the document said. "In essence, physical and/or psychological duress are viewed as an alternative to the more time-consuming conventional interrogation process. The error inherent in this line of thinking is the assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate information. History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption."<br /><br />There was no consideration within the National Security Council that the planned techniques stemmed from Chinese communist practices and had been deemed torture when employed against American personnel, the former administration official said. The U.S. military prosecuted its own soldiers for using waterboarding in the Philippines and had put Japanese officers on trial for war crimes for its use against Americans and other allied nationals during World War II.<br /><br />The reasoning in the JPRA document contrasted sharply with arguments being pressed at the time by current and former military psychologists in the SERE program, including James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, who later formed a company that became a CIA contractor advising on interrogations. Both men declined to comment on their role in formulating interrogation policy.<br /><br />The JPRA attachment said the key deficiency of physical or psychological duress is the reliability and accuracy of the information gained. "A subject in pain may provide an answer, any answer, or many answers in order to get the pain to stop," it said.<br /><br />In conclusion, the document said, "the application of extreme physical and/or psychological duress (torture) has some serious operational deficits, most notably, the potential to result in unreliable information." The word "extreme" is underlined.<br /><br />Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report. <br /><br />http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403171_pf.htmlThe Washington Posthttp://www.washingtonpost.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-26743424244593071632009-04-24T07:48:00.000-07:002009-04-24T07:48:00.000-07:00Democrats split on Bush-era interrogation probe
B...Democrats split on Bush-era interrogation probe<br /><br />By Randall Mikkelsen<br />Reuters<br />Friday, April 24, 2009 8:59 AM <br /><br /><br /><br />WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A debate over how to investigate Bush-era officials who authorized harsh interrogation tactics of terrorism suspects split Washington on Thursday, and Democrats squabbled over how to proceed. <br /><br />The top Democrats in Congress differed over the creation of a special "truth commission" to investigate whether laws were violated by Bush administration officials whose legal analysis sanctioned waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning, and other methods such as sleep deprivation and forced nudity. <br /><br />While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for creation of such a commission, her Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Harry Reid, declined to endorse it. <br /><br />Reid said the Senate intelligence committee should complete its own closed-door inquiry, which could take up to a year. "I believe what we have to do is wait until the intelligence committee finishes its work," Reid told the Las Vegas Sun. <br /><br />The White House did not sound enthusiastic about a special commission. "I think the last few days might well be evidence of why something like this would likely just become a political back-and-forth," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said. <br /><br />President Barack Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, said he would not allow "criminalization" of policy differences over CIA interrogations. <br /><br />"However, it is my responsibility as the attorney general to enforce the law," Holder told a congressional hearing. "If I see wrongdoing, I will pursue it to the full extent of the law." <br /><br />The Democratic U.S. president on Tuesday opened the door to the possible prosecution of officials from the Republican Bush administration. Obama's comments intensified a political firestorm that erupted last week when he released previously top-secret Bush-era memos that provided legal justification for various interrogation techniques. <br /><br />After the White House first said it wanted to look forward and not review the past, Obama raised the possibility that a bipartisan panel could look at the matter and said it would be up to the Justice Department to decide whether anyone from former President George W. Bush's administration should be prosecuted. <br /><br />Comments by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a Republican holdover from the Bush administration, suggested there was a split among Obama's inner circle about releasing the memos. <br /><br />Gates said in Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, that he was concerned the release of the documents could lead to a backlash against U.S. interests overseas, but that the disclosures were inevitable. <br /><br />"There was the realization in the discussions that some of these disclosures could be used by al Qaeda and our adversaries," Gates said. <br /><br />PRESSURE TO TAKE ACTION <br /><br />Democrats are being driven by pressure from their left wing to take action against Bush administration officials, saying Bush allowed interrogation techniques that amounted to torture and someone should be held responsible. <br /><br />Republicans, led by former Vice President Dick Cheney, have argued the tactics led to intelligence breakthroughs that saved U.S. lives, and accused Democrats of seeking to criminalize what amounts to a policy disagreement. <br /><br />"The president made a big deal, after coming to office, about looking forward and not looking backward. And I wish there were as much focus in this administration on policies that will keep us safe here in the United States," said the top Senate Republican, Mitch McConnell. <br /><br />Finger-pointing was taking place over who knew about the interrogation techniques when, given that the Bush administration briefed congressional leaders about its efforts to prevent a repeat of the September 11 attacks. <br /><br />Pelosi, asked about a classified briefing she received in 2002 from the Bush administration on interrogation techniques, said she was never told waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques were being used. <br /><br />"We were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used. What they did tell us was that they had some ... (legal) opinions that they could be used," she told a news conference. <br /><br />But the top Republican in the House, John Boehner of Ohio, told reporters he had seen a partial list of Democrats and Republicans who were briefed on the aggressive interrogation techniques "and not a word was raised about it at the time." <br /><br />Asked if Pelosi was one of them, he said she and others had been "fully briefed" on the techniques. <br /><br />(Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria and Susan Cornwell; writing by Steve Holland; editing by Will Dunham)<br /><br />http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042401387_pf.htmlThe Washington Posthttp://www.washingtonpost.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-6747751688193541472009-04-23T16:56:00.000-07:002009-04-23T16:56:00.000-07:00Esto se pone la mar de interesante. El Senado demo...Esto se pone la mar de interesante. El Senado democrata a todas luces obliga a el Presidente Barack Obama de no interponerse en esta historica investigacion, y ya este parece<br />haberse allanado a la voluntad del Congreso federal, que si parece listo y decidido a ajusticiar a los culpables, por lo visto.<br />Gracias Roberto.Jose Oyola Medinanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-68474182642718151872009-04-23T12:59:00.000-07:002009-04-23T12:59:00.000-07:00Senate Report: Rice, Cheney OK'd CIA Use of Waterb...Senate Report: Rice, Cheney OK'd CIA Use of Waterboarding<br /><br />WASHINGTON - Top Bush administration officials gave the CIA approval to use waterboarding, a controversial interrogation technique, as early as 2002, a Senate intelligence report shows.<br /><br />On July 17, 2002, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who later became secretary of state, said the CIA could proceed with "alternative interrogation methods," including waterboarding, when questioning suspected al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah.<br /><br />The decision was contingent on the Justice Department's determining the method's legality. A week later, Attorney General John Ashcroft had determined the "proposed interrogation techniques were lawful," the report said.<br /><br />The same techniques also were used in the interrogations of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the first person charged in the United States in the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen that killed 17 U.S. sailors, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind behind the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.<br /><br />The release of the report, prepared by the attorney general's office at the request of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, details and declassifies the advice given to the CIA regarding its interrogation techniques.<br /><br />The techniques again gained the endorsement of the Bush administration in spring 2003 when the CIA asked for a "reaffirmation of the policies and practices in the interrogation program."<br /><br />In a meeting that included Vice President Dick Cheney, CIA Director George Tenet, Ashcroft, Rice and their legal counsels, "the principals reaffirmed that the CIA program was lawful and reflected administration policy," the report said.<br /><br />President Obama has called waterboarding -- which simulates drowning -- torture and last week released a series of Bush-era memos on interrogation tactics.<br /><br />One memo showed that CIA interrogators used waterboarding at least 266 times on Zubaydah and Mohammed.<br /><br />In a 2008 interview with ABC, Cheney defended the practice of waterboarding, now banned by the Obama administration, particularly in the case of Mohammed.<br /><br />"Did it produce the desired results? I think it did," Cheney said.<br /><br />"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ... provided us with a wealth of information. There was a period of time there, three or fours years ago, when about half of everything we knew about al Qaeda came from that one source.<br /><br />"So it's been a remarkably successful effort," he said. "I think the results speak for themselves."<br /><br />More recently, Cheney said some people are more interested in reading terrorists their rights than protecting the United States, a dig at the new administration.<br /><br />Cheney this week called Obama's release of the Bush memos "disturbing" and said the administration is sitting on other CIA memos that show that the interrogations helped stop terror attacks.<br /><br />"They didn't put out the memos that show the success of the effort, and there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity," Cheney told Fox News on Monday. "They have not been declassified."<br />© 2009 Cable News Network<br /><br />http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/04/23CNNnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-415382146634872462009-04-23T11:43:00.000-07:002009-04-23T11:43:00.000-07:00FBI Zubaydah Interrogator Calls George Bush a Liar...FBI Zubaydah Interrogator Calls George Bush a Liar: “No Actionable Intelligence Gained from Using Enhanced Interrogation Techniques”<br />By: Jane Hamsher Thursday April 23, 2009 10:06 am<br /><br />Ali Soufan, an FBI interrogator who stayed mum for seven years about "the false claims magnifying the effectiveness of the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding" breaks his silence in the NYT today. Along with other CIA and FBI agents, he questioned Zubadayah in June of 2002 before "harsh techniques" were introduced:<br /><br />"Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence. We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber."<br /><br />That squares with what part of what George Bush said in his 2006 speech defending the use of "new interrogation" techniques:<br /><br />"During questioning, he at first disclosed what he thought was nominal information -- and then stopped all cooperation. Well, in fact, the "nominal" information he gave us turned out to be quite important. For example, Zubaydah disclosed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- or KSM -- was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, and used the alias "Muktar." This was a vital piece of the puzzle that helped our intelligence community pursue KSM."<br /><br />But that's where the stories diverge. Bush says Zubadayah gave critical information about Padilla's plans:<br /><br />"Abu Zubaydah also provided information that helped stop a terrorist attack being planned for inside the United States -- an attack about which we had no previous information. Zubaydah told us that al Qaeda operatives were planning to launch an attack in the U.S., and provided physical descriptions of the operatives and information on their general location. Based on the information he provided, the operatives were detained -- one while traveling to the United States."<br /><br />Soufan says this isn't true:<br /><br />"Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. This is false.... As for Mr. Padilla, the dates just don’t add up: the harsh techniques were approved in the memo of August 2002, Mr. Padilla had been arrested that May."<br /><br />Bush said that at this point, after Zubadayah gave up information about KSM and Padilla using normal interrogation techniques, he became uncooperative: "We knew that Zubaydah had more information that could save innocent lives, but he stopped talking." According to Jane Mayer, that's not what happened -- the FBI thought they were getting "phenomenal" information. George Tenet was thrilled, until he found out it was an FBI success, not a CIA success. According to Ron Suskind, Tenet was under "extraordinary pressure from Bush to produce breakthrough intelligence from Zubayda, whose capture the President had sold to the country as a major coup."<br /><br />The CIA team arrived, the FBI people were frozen out, and psychologist James Mitchell took over and the "enhanced interrogation techniques" began. Bush said this was necessary because "it became clear that he had received training on how to resist interrogation." In fact, says Mayer, "what happened next was that Zubayda completely shut down. After the next ten to fifteen days, the FBI agents had to be brought back in, at which point he began talking again." But they were once again expelled by orders from Washington. According to the McClatchy story yesterday, Cheney and Rumsfeld "demanded that the interrogators find evidence of al Qaida-Iraq collaboration."<br /><br />Bush said the CIA efforts were successful, and that the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" led to the capture of Ramzi bin al Shibh:<br /><br />"Zubaydah was questioned using these procedures, and soon he began to provide information on key al Qaeda operatives, including information that helped us find and capture more of those responsible for the attacks on September the 11th. For example, Zubaydah identified one of KSM's accomplices in the 9/11 attacks -- a terrorist named Ramzi bin al Shibh. The information Zubaydah provided helped lead to the capture of bin al Shibh."<br /><br />And that's where Soufan calls him a liar:<br /><br />"The information that led to Mr. Shibh’s capture came primarily from a different terrorist operative who was interviewed using traditional methods... there was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics"<br /><br />http://firedoglake.com/2009/04/23/fbi-zubaydah-interrogator-calls-george-bush-a-liar-no-actionable-intelligence-gained-from-using-enhanced-interrogation-techniques/Roberto Ortiz-Felicianohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10712890752942849773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-48250949089876021812009-04-23T10:50:00.000-07:002009-04-23T10:50:00.000-07:00Defense Chief Gates Says He Backed Releasing CIA M...Defense Chief Gates Says He Backed Releasing CIA Memos<br /><br />By Ann Scott Tyson<br />Washington Post Staff Writer<br />Thursday, April 23, 2009 12:22 PM<br /><br />CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C., April 23 -- Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates indicated Thursday that he supported the release of sensitive memos on detainee interrogation methods last week because he viewed their ultimate disclosure as inevitable.<br /><br />Gates, a former CIA director, said his foremost concern was that CIA officers who had used the interrogation techniques should be protected from prosecution.<br /><br />"I felt very strongly the importance that they be protected," Gates told reporters during a visit to this Marine Corps base in North Carolina.<br /><br />Another concern, Gates said, was the possibility that the Obama administration's release of the memos would cause a "backlash in the Middle East" that could adversely affect U.S. forces operating there. In discussions, he said, senior administration officials realized the disclosure could be "used by al-Qaeda" to generate opposition against the United States.<br /><br />Despite these concerns, Gates said he believed it was very likely that the interrogation memos would eventually become public.<br /><br />In light of congressional probes and lawsuits on detainee operations, there was "a certain inevitability that most of this would come out," he said.<br /><br />"All of us wrestled with it," he said when asked whether he personally supported the release of the memos. But he added that his own view was shaped by his belief that the methods would ultimately become known.<br /><br />Gates said he deferred to the Justice Department on the extent of the redactions to the memos. <br /><br />http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/23/AR2009042302446_pf.htmlThe Washington Posthttp://www.washingtonpost.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-17768070790324069572009-04-23T09:05:00.000-07:002009-04-23T09:05:00.000-07:00Harsh Methods Approved as Early as Summer 2002
Hol...Harsh Methods Approved as Early as Summer 2002<br />Holder Declassifies Timeline of Actions by Top Bush Administration Officials Regarding Interrogation<br /><br />By R. Jeffrey Smith and Peter Finn<br />Washington Post Staff Writers<br />Thursday, April 23, 2009<br /><br />Condoleezza Rice, John D. Ashcroft and other top Bush administration officials approved as early as the summer of 2002 the CIA's use at secret prisons of harsh interrogation methods, including waterboarding, a technique that new Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has described as illegal torture, according to a chronology prepared by the Senate intelligence committee and declassified by Holder.<br /><br />At a time when the Justice Department is deciding whether former officials who set interrogation policy or formulated the legal justifications for it should be investigated for possible crimes, the timeline lists at least a dozen members of the Bush administration who were present when the CIA's director or others explained exactly which questioning techniques were to be used and how those sessions proceeded.<br /><br />Rice gave a key early green light when, as President George W. Bush's national security adviser, she met on July 17, 2002, with the CIA's then-director, George J. Tenet, and "advised that the CIA could proceed with its proposed interrogation of Abu Zubaida," subject to approval by the Justice Department, according to the timeline.<br /><br />Abu Zubaida, a Saudi-born Palestinian whose real name is Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Hussein, was captured in Pakistan in March 2002. He was the first high-value detainee in CIA custody, and the agency believed that the al-Qaeda associate was "withholding imminent threat information," according to the timeline.<br /><br />Rice and four other administration officials were first briefed in May 2002 on "alternative interrogation methods, including waterboarding," the timeline shows. Waterboarding is a technique that simulates drowning.<br /><br />A year later, in July 2003, the CIA briefed Rice, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Attorney General Ashcroft, White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales and National Security Council legal adviser John B. Bellinger III on the use of waterboarding and other methods, the timeline states. They "reaffirmed that the CIA program was lawful and reflected administration policy."<br /><br />"This was not an abstract discussion. These were very detailed and specific conversations," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the National Security Project at the American Civil Liberties Union. "And it's further evidence of the role that senior administration officials had."<br /><br />At that point, the United States had also captured Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, who was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003, according to recently released Justice Department documents.<br /><br />Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld were not briefed on the program until September 2003, the narrative shows. "Strikingly, unless there is a further story in records not yet shown to us, the secretary of state and the secretary of defense were not involved in the decision-making process, despite the high stakes for U.S. foreign policy and for the treatment of the U.S. military," said Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.).<br /><br />Reached in California, Bellinger declined to comment. Attempts to contact Ashcroft and Tenet through spokespeople were unsuccessful. Rice did not respond to an e-mail, and a spokesman for Gonzales declined to comment. The CIA also declined to comment.<br /><br />"This chronology is misleading and incomplete and does not reflect the NSC review process or the information presented to the NSC," said a former White House official involved in the deliberations.<br /><br />Cheney has said repeatedly that the CIA program was legal and critical in breaking up a series of planned terrorist attacks. He has called on the Obama administration to declassify memos examining the effectiveness of the interrogation policies he supported.<br /><br />In the fall of 2002, four senior members of Congress, including Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), now speaker of the House, were secretly briefed on interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, according to U.S. officials. Pelosi has confirmed that she was then "briefed on interrogation techniques the administration was considering using in the future. The administration advised that legal counsel for both the CIA and the Justice Department had concluded that the techniques were legal."<br /><br />In early 2004, a comprehensive report by the CIA inspector general raised new questions about the program, including queries about the waterboarding of three detainees. It said the interrogations were not clearly legal under an international treaty the United States had signed known as the Convention Against Torture, which bars cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment that falls short of torture.<br /><br />A fresh legal review by the Justice Department prompted Ashcroft to inform the CIA in writing on July 22, 2004, that its interrogation methods -- except waterboarding -- were legal. The following month, the head of the department's Office of Legal Counsel added that even waterboarding would be legal if it were carried out with a series of safeguards according to CIA plans. By May 2005, the department had completed two more reviews of the program that came to the same conclusion. Those were among the memos President Obama released last week.<br /><br />After the leak in 2005 of a Justice Department memo that narrowly defined the type of activity that would constitute torture, Rice traveled to Europe in an effort to quell the international uproar. As her trip was getting underway, she said: "The United States government does not authorize or condone torture of detainees. Torture, and conspiracy to commit torture, are crimes under U.S. law, wherever they may occur in the world."<br /><br />Rice also said at the time that the administration's policy "will be consistent" with the international convention prohibiting "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment." A former aide said that gaining administration approval for Rice to make this statement was "a move forward."<br /><br />Staff writer Glenn Kessler and staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report. <br /><br />http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/22/AR2009042203141_pf.htmlThe Washington Posthttp://www.washingtonpost.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-91702108838273634762009-04-23T08:55:00.000-07:002009-04-23T08:55:00.000-07:00Congress Debates Fresh Investigation Of Interrogat...Congress Debates Fresh Investigation Of Interrogations<br />White House Tries to Quell Controversy<br /><br />By Dan Balz and Perry Bacon Jr.<br />Washington Post Staff Writers<br />Thursday, April 23, 2009<br /><br />The legacy of George W. Bush continued to dog President Obama and his administration yesterday, as Congress divided over creating a panel to investigate the harsh interrogation techniques employed under Bush's authorization and the White House tried to contain the controversy over the president's decision to release Justice Department memos justifying and outlining those procedures.<br /><br />Obama had hoped to put the whole matter behind him, first by banning those interrogation methods early in his presidency and then by releasing the memos last week with the provison that no CIA official who carried out interrogations should be prosecuted.<br /><br />Instead, the latest decision has stirred controversy on the right and the left. Obama has drawn sharp criticism from former vice president Richard B. Cheney, former CIA directors and Republican elected officials for releasing the memos. Those critics see softness in the commander in chief. He faces equally strong reaction from the left, where there is a desire to punish Bush administration officials for their actions and to conduct a more thorough investigation of what happened.<br /><br />The controversy moved to Capitol Hill yesterday as lawmakers debated the wisdom of beginning a fresh investigation of the Bush-era practices. Several top Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), withheld judgment, noting that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has begun an inquiry.<br /><br />House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), however, endorsed the idea and said witnesses should not be immune from prosecution.<br /><br />Obama apparently thought he could avoid what is now playing out. In the weeks when he was weighing the release of the memos, a vigorous debate took place within his administration. There was, according to a senior official, considerable support among Obama's advisers for the creation of a 9/11 Commission-style investigation as an alternative to releasing the documents. But the president quashed the concept.<br /><br />"His concern was that would ratchet the whole thing up," the official said. "His whole thing is: 'I banned all this. This chapter is over. What we don't need now is to become a sort of feeding frenzy where we go back and re-litigate all this.' "<br /><br />Obama knew he could not stop Congress from doing whatever lawmakers decided to do, but he was reluctant to give a presidential imprimatur to a national commission that would keep the controversy alive for months or years. He had his own agenda and wanted to move on. Putting out the memos seemed to be the cleanest way to accomplish his twin goals of making a break with the previous administration and avoiding a lengthy and partisan debate over his policy vs. Bush's.<br /><br />That was where things stood when the administration released the information last week. In the subsequent four days, officials did damage control. Obama went to CIA headquarters Monday to defend his decision and to try to boost morale at the agency. Meanwhile, there was a backlash against the administration's seeming posture that no one should be prosecuted for what happened under Bush.<br /><br />White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel contributed to the perception that this was the administration's position. Speaking on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, he said that neither the CIA officials who carried out the harsh interrogations nor the Justice Department officials who authorized them should be prosecuted. "It's not a time to use our energy and our time in looking back [in] any sense of anger and retribution," he said.<br /><br />That was contrary to what the administration signaled when the memos were released. At that time, it seemed clear that the authors of the legal justification could face legal jeopardy, depending on a further review by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.<br /><br />When Obama was pressed on this and other questions Tuesday, he said he was not prepared to rule out prosecutions of some of those responsible for setting the policy. What seemed to be off the table Monday was suddenly back on it.<br /><br />White House officials said the president's words were not a change in policy, but the headlines and the television commentary said otherwise. Now, Obama finds himself in the middle of a storm that may or may not pass quickly.<br /><br />Bush administration veterans, led by Cheney, are poised to renew a high-volume debate over the efficacy of the interrogation methods and, more broadly, the approach to terrorism that Obama's predecessor took after Sept. 11, 2001. Cheney called this week for the release of more memos that he said would demonstrate how effective the tactics were. And in an interview with Fox News's Sean Hannity, he made it clear that he is ready to wage a battle over who is right.<br /><br />"The threat is there. It's very real, and it's continuing," Cheney said. "And what the Obama people are doing, in effect, is saying, 'Well, we don't need those tough policies that we had.' "<br /><br />Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was pressed in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday to respond to Cheney's contention that the administration is suppressing evidence that the techniques worked and that Bush officials tried to correct problems as they arose. "It won't surprise you that I don't consider him a particularly reliable source of information," Clinton responded.<br /><br />Obama has triggered a debate over what happens next. The American Civil Liberties Union has called for a special prosecutor. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs appeared to reject that course, saying Justice Department lawyers are looking into the question of legal action against those responsible for authorizing the interrogation methods and are capable of reaching a conclusion.<br /><br />Gibbs also emphasized that it will be up to the Justice Department, not the White House, to decide how to proceed, and he invoked an analogy.<br /><br />"If you spray-paint the back of this plane, if you tear up one of the seats, even though it's Air Force One, the president doesn't make a determination as to who broke the law," Gibbs said. "That's a legal official."<br /><br />The possibility of a commission remained unclear. The Senate's leading advocate for the idea, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), said Tuesday that he welcomed Obama's comments opening the way for an inquiry but was still looking to gather support.<br /><br />Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), one of the chief backers of the commission proposal, sent Obama a letter yesterday pressing him to consider prosecuting not only the lawyers who provided legal justification but also some of the people who carried out the procedures.<br /><br />In a joint statement, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said prosecuting Bush administration officials for their legal opinions would have a "deeply chilling effect" on any administration receiving legal advice. And they said a commission would "focus on the mistakes of the past" instead of "looking forward to solutions."<br /><br />White House officials have expressed confidence that a congressionally backed investigation will not come to pass. But they have been drawn into a debate they did not foresee. The president has a full plate, domestically and internationally. He had hoped that, in winning the election and moving quickly to change his predecessor's policies, he could close the books on Bush's presidency.<br /><br />Instead, he has found in his first months how difficult that is. Hopes for an immediate change in tone have withered. Republican opposition to his economic policies remains nearly unanimous. With this latest controversy, he is learning that neither the opponents nor the defenders of Bush's presidency are ready to move on.<br /><br />Staff writers Glenn Kessler and Michael D. Shear contributed to this report<br /><br />http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/22/AR2009042204032_pf.htmlThe Washington Posthttp://www.washingtonpost.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-10964010192341372712009-04-23T08:53:00.000-07:002009-04-23T08:53:00.000-07:00Interrogations’ Effectiveness May Prove Elusive
By...Interrogations’ Effectiveness May Prove Elusive<br />By SCOTT SHANE<br />April 23, 2009<br />News Analysis<br />WASHINGTON — Even the most exacting truth commission may have a hard time determining for certain whether brutal interrogations conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency helped keep the country safe.<br /><br />Last week’s release of long-secret Justice Department interrogation memorandums has given rise to starkly opposing narratives about what, if anything, was gained by the C.I.A.’s use of waterboarding, wall-slamming and other physical pressure to shock and intimidate Qaeda operatives.<br /><br />Senior Bush administration officials, led by Vice President Dick Cheney and cheered by many Congressional Republicans, are fighting a rear-guard action in defense of their record. Only by using the harshest methods, they insist, did the intelligence agency get the information it needed to round up Qaeda killers and save thousands of American lives.<br /><br />Even President Obama’s new director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, wrote in a memorandum to his staff last week that “high value information came from interrogations in which these methods were used,” an assertion left out when the memorandum was edited for public release. By contrast, Mr. Obama and most of his top aides have argued that the use of those methods betrayed American values — and anyway, produced unreliable information. Those are a convenient pair of opinions, of course: the moral balancing would be far trickier if the C.I.A. methods were demonstrated to have been crucial in disrupting major plots.<br /><br />For both sides, the political stakes are high, as proposals for a national commission to unravel the interrogation story appear to be gaining momentum. Mr. Obama and his allies need to discredit the techniques he has banned. Otherwise, in the event of a future terrorist attack, critics may blame his decision to rein in C.I.A. interrogators.<br /><br />But if a strong case emerges that the Bush administration authorized torture and got nothing but prisoners’ desperate fabrications in return, that will tarnish what Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have claimed as their greatest achievement: preventing new attacks after Sept. 11, 2001.<br /><br />Within the agency, the necessity, effectiveness and legality of the interrogation methods have been repeatedly subject to review. The agency’s inspector general, John L. Helgerson, studied the program in 2004 and raised serious questions. According to former intelligence officials, that led to separate reviews by an internal panel headed by Henry A. Crumpton, a veteran counterterrorism officer, and by two outsiders, Gardner Peckham, who had served as national security adviser to Newt Gingrich, and John J. Hamre, a former deputy defense secretary.<br /><br />Their conclusions remain classified, but that could change now that the intelligence agency’s techniques have been made public. In a twist this week, Mr. Cheney, a fierce defender of secrecy as vice president, called for the release of more classified memorandums that he asserted prove the effectiveness of the coercive techniques.<br /><br />The second-guessing of the C.I.A.’s methods inside the government began long before Mr. Obama’s election. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, the government agency with the greatest knowledge of Al Qaeda in 2001, chose not to participate in the C.I.A. interrogation program after agents became uneasy about the earliest use of harsh methods in 2002 on Abu Zubaydah, a long-sought terrorist facilitator.<br /><br />In an interview with Vanity Fair last year, the F.B.I. director since 2001, Robert S. Mueller III, was asked whether any attacks had been disrupted because of intelligence obtained through the coercive methods. “I don’t believe that has been the case,” Mr. Mueller said. (A spokesman for Mr. Mueller, John Miller, said on Tuesday, “The quote is accurate.”)<br /><br />That assessment stands in sharp contrast to many assertions by Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, who on Fox News on Sunday said of the methods: “They did work. They kept us safe for seven years.”<br /><br />Four successive C.I.A. directors have made similar claims, and the most recent, Michael V. Hayden, said in January that he believed the methods “got the maximum amount of information” from prisoners, citing specifically Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the chief 9/11 plotter.<br /><br />Many intelligence officials, including some opposed to the brutal methods, confirm that the program produced information of great value, including tips on early-stage schemes to attack tall buildings on the West Coast and buildings in New York’s financial district and Washington. Interrogation of one Qaeda operative led to tips on finding others, until the leadership of the organization was decimated. Removing from the scene such dedicated and skilled plotters as Mr. Mohammed, or the Indonesian terrorist known as Hambali, almost certainly prevented future attacks.<br /><br />But which information came from which methods, and whether the same result might have been achieved without the political, legal and moral cost of the torture controversy, is hotly disputed, even inside the intelligence agency.<br /><br />The Justice Department memorandums released last week illustrate how difficult it can be to assess claims of effectiveness. One 2005 memorandum, for example, asserts that “enhanced techniques” used on Abu Zubaydah and Mr. Mohammed “yielded critical information.”<br /><br />But the memorandum then lists among Abu Zubaydah’s revelations the identification of Mr. Mohammed and of an alleged radiological bomb plot by Jose Padilla, the American Qaeda associate. Both those disclosures were made long before Abu Zubaydah was subjected to harsh treatment, according to multiple accounts.<br /><br />On Mr. Mohammed, the record is murkier. The memorandum says that “before the C.I.A. used enhanced techniques,” Mr. Mohammed “resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, ‘Simply noting, ‘Soon, you will know.’ ”<br /><br />But the same memorandum reveals in a footnote that Mr. Mohammed, captured on March 1, 2003, was waterboarded 183 times that month. That striking number, which would average out to six waterboardings a day, suggests that interrogators did not try a traditional, rapport-building approach for long before escalating to their most extreme tool.<br /><br />Mr. Obama paid his first visit to the agency this week, and his reference to the interrogation issue made for an awkward moment in which he sounded like a teacher gently correcting his pupils.<br /><br />“Don’t be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we’ve made some mistakes,” he said. “That’s how we learn.”<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/us/politics/23detain.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig&pagewanted=printThe New York Timeshttp://www.nytimes.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-63679738100226152262009-04-22T14:16:00.000-07:002009-04-22T14:16:00.000-07:00Que se procesen criminalmente por violaciones a lo...Que se procesen criminalmente por violaciones a los derechos humanos, y igualmente que se investiguen las violaciones a los derechos civiles y constitucionales a ciudadanos Americanos, desde Alaska a Puerto Rico. La unica manera de<br />garantizar, aunque no en su totalidad, que no se repitan las<br />practicas abusivas que laceran el derecho a existir de cada ser humano, extranjero o ciudadano.Jose Oyola Medinanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-40184409866967691902009-04-22T13:49:00.000-07:002009-04-22T13:49:00.000-07:00Defensores de la tortura al banquillo
Por William ...Defensores de la tortura al banquillo<br />Por William Fisher<br /><br />...el primer objetivo de los acusadores es el ex abogado general del Departamento (ministerio) de Defensa, William J. Haynes II.<br /><br />La filial de la Asociación Nacional de Abogados (NLG) en San Francisco ya presentó una demanda en su contra, y le pidió al Colegio de Abogados del occidental estado de California que lo investigara y expulsara.<br /><br />Haynes se desempeña ahora como abogado de la compañía automovilística Chevron Corp. en San Ramón, California.<br /><br />El periódico Los Angeles Times informó que una demanda similar se prepara en el nororiental estado de Pennsylvania contra el ex abogado del Departamento de Justicia (fiscalía general) John C. Yoo, profesor de Derecho de la Universidad de California.<br /><br />El motivo es el rol que jugó en la elaboración de las pautas legales que avalaban las denominadas técnicas de "interrogatorio mejorado", mientras se desempeñaba en la Oficina de Asesoramiento legal de ese departamento, durante el gobierno de George W. Bush (2001-2009).<br /><br />Entre esas técnicas figuraba el "waterboarding" o simulación de ahogamiento, conocido y usado por las dictaduras latinoamericanas de los años 70 bajo el nombre de "submarino".<br /><br />"Los abogados que brindaron a los altos funcionarios de Bush una fachada ‘legal’ participaron en la formulación de la política de tortura y tratamientos crueles. Deberían ser el blanco de investigación penal e inhabilitados para el ejercicio de la abogacía por sus violaciones éticas", dijo a IPS Marjorie Cohn, presidenta del NLG.<br /><br />Cohn también observó que la demanda presentada en Pennsylvania contra John Yoo fue puesta en suspenso.<br /><br />El proceso quedó pendiente "de la difusión del informe de la Oficina de Responsabilidad Profesional del Departamento de Justicia, que aparentemente es muy crítica de Yoo, Jay Bybee y Stephen Bradbury, autores de los memorandos sobre tortura", explicó la abogada.<br /><br />Haynes se desempeñó como consejero general del Departamento de Defensa desde el 24 de mayo de 2001 hasta su abrupta renuncia el 25 de febrero de 2008, días después de que la revista The Nation publicó un artículo acusándolo de "arreglar" juicios a prisioneros en la cubana bahía de Guantánamo.<br /><br />Haynes fue el principal funcionario legal del Departamento de Defensa y asesor legal del entonces secretario de esa cartera, Donald Rumsfeld.<br /><br />Varios memorandos a y de Haynes fueron difundidos en marzo como parte de las desclasificaciones realizadas por el Departamento de Justicia de Obama.<br /><br />Haynes también fue uno de los seis funcionarios del gobierno de Bush nombrados en la investigación en curso sobre torturas y otros delitos hoy a consideración de la justicia española.<br /><br />La demanda del NLG señala que, mientras era consejero general del Departamento de Defensa, Haynes dejó de lado sus responsabilidades profesionales y promovió tácticas severas que equivalían a tortura, en violación del derecho estadounidense e internacional.<br /><br />Esta "inadecuada defensa" de esas técnicas "condujo directamente a abusos de detenidos en las bases de la bahía de Guantánamo y Abu Ghraib", en Iraq, acusó el NLG en la demanda.<br /><br />También señaló que Haynes brindó una fachada legal para que soldados y agentes federales de Estados Unidos usaran perros y otros métodos humillantes, como ordenar a los prisioneros a desnudarse y a soportar posiciones estresantes.<br /><br />La demanda plantea que Haynes "está directamente vinculado a la tortura de al menos un detenido", Mohamed Mani Ahmad al-Kahtani, supuesto miembro de la red extremista Al Qaeda, a quien se acusa de participar en los ataques terroristas del 11 de septiembre de 2001, que dejaron 3.000 muertos en Nueva York y Washington.<br /><br />A Al-Kahtani se le negó el ingreso a territorio estadounidense por sospechas de que intentaba inmigrar ilegalmente. Desde enero de 2002 está detenido en Guantánamo.<br /><br />"Nosotros torturamos a Kathani. Su trato recibe la definición legal de tortura", dijo Susan J. Crawford, funcionaria a cargo de las acusaciones en las cortes marciales en Guantánamo. Por este motivo, ella misma desestimó los cargos contra Khatani.<br /><br />El NLG denuncia que Haynes también está directamente vinculado al juicio de soldados de bajo rango por usar técnicas que él aprobó.<br /><br />La asociación alega que Haynes no mostró "respeto ni obediencia por la ley, ni respeto por los derechos de otros", como requieren las normas internas de esta organización de abogados.<br /><br />"Intencional o imprudentemente", él no actuó de modo competente, no supervisó adecuadamente el trabajo de los abogados subordinados, y presentó a Rumsfeld "memorandos legales de baja calidad en lo que refiere a la definición de tortura".<br /><br />"Haynes también actuó de modo incompetente al aconsejarle al secretario Rumsfeld que aprobara técnicas de interrogatorios que violaban el derecho estadounidense e internacional, y sin siquiera mencionar fuertes objeciones por parte del ejército", señala la demanda.<br /><br />En el marco del memorando de Haynes y aprobado por Rumsfeld, se molestó a un detenido haciendo que una mujer lo tocara, además de que hubiera "mujeres viendo su cuerpo desnudo", y negándole el derecho a rezar.<br /><br />Haynes "recomendó la aprobación de agresivas técnicas de interrogatorio que los militares declararon pueden violar la ley. Obligó a abogados subordinados a depender de los memorandos preparados por la Oficina de Asesoramiento Legal, que desde entonces fueron objeto de rescisiones sin precedentes. Su consejo fue tan en contra de la ley que Rumsfeld fue forzado a rescindir la aprobación en base al memorando Haynes", según la demanda del NLG.<br /><br />"No hay absolutamente ninguna evidencia de que el señor Haynes intentara presentar una evaluación imparcial, no tendenciosa, de la ley. Toda la evidencia muestra que el señor Haynes aconsejó inadecuadamente la asignación de técnicas ilegales e inhumanas de interrogatorios", continúa el texto.<br /><br />Haynes "no apoyó o defendió la Constitución de Estados Unidos, ni las leyes de Estados Unidos, ni mantuvo el respeto debido a los tribunales y funcionarios judiciales. Sus acciones involucraron bajeza moral, deshonestidad y corrupción", agrega.<br /><br />Además, "abusó de la ley y no la respetó, con fines políticos. Esto está mal".<br /><br />El 29 de septiembre de 2003, Bush nombró a Haynes como miembro del Tribunal de Apelaciones del Cuarto Circuito.<br /><br />Pero su participación en un memorando titulado "Argumentos legales para evitar la jurisdicción de las Convenciones de Ginebra" desató una intervención parlamentaria que impidió que su nominación recibiera la plena aprobación del Senado.<br /><br />Según el NLG, los juicios de Nuremberg a los criminales de guerra nazis tras la Segunda Guerra Mundial (1939-1945) mostraron que "los líderes poderosos pueden comprometerse, y lo hacen, en actos ilegales y trato inhumano a otros. Estos líderes dependen de los abogados y del sistema legal para darle apariencia de legitimidad a una agenda ilegal. Tristemente, siempre parece haber abogados dispuestos a aceptar el ofrecimiento de gobernantes poderosos"<br /><br />http://www.ipsnoticias.net/nota.asp?idnews=91901Roberto Ortiz-Felicianohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10712890752942849773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-9107741842522882122009-04-22T12:23:00.000-07:002009-04-22T12:23:00.000-07:00Amigo Jose R. Cepeda, buen punto se trae usted, ni...Amigo Jose R. Cepeda, buen punto se trae usted, ni lo habia<br />pensado con tantas cosas sucediendo a la vez, definitivo, hay<br />que sentar en el banquillo de acusados los responsables por esta enorme crisis financiera que sin dudas supone la apropiacion ilegal de billones de dolares, hicieron fiesta en Wall Street y otras companias privadas, y ahora se les tira la toalla a billetazo impreso pero con cargos al pueblo, espero Roberto pueda mas adelante analizar este asunto, Gracias!Jose Oyola Medinanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-43982784239630720282009-04-22T12:16:00.000-07:002009-04-22T12:16:00.000-07:00Ya era hora de que en USA se acabara la impunidad....Ya era hora de que en USA se acabara la impunidad. Si hubo violaciones de derechos humanos que sean procesados como ellos exigen de otros.<br /><br />El próximo paso puede ser quitarle también la impunidad a los delincuentes de cuello blanco. Se fijaron q varios de los bancos y empresas finacieras de USA reportaron ganancias billonarias este último trimestre. ¿Q cambió? ...¿seré yo, o esto huele a chanchullo?José R. Cepedanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-2481597479750997122009-04-22T05:00:00.000-07:002009-04-22T05:00:00.000-07:00Report Gives New Detail on Approval of Brutal Tech...Report Gives New Detail on Approval of Brutal Techniques<br />By BRIAN KNOWLTON<br />April 22, 2009<br />WASHINGTON — A newly declassified Congressional report released Tuesday outlined the most detailed evidence yet that the military’s use of harsh interrogation methods on terrorism suspects was approved at high levels of the Bush administration.<br /><br />The report focused solely on interrogations carried out by the military, not those conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency at its secret prisons overseas. It rejected claims by former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others that Pentagon policies played no role in harsh treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq or other military facilities.<br /><br />The 232-page report, the product of an 18-month inquiry, was approved on Nov. 20 by the Senate Armed Services Committee, but has since been under Pentagon review for declassification. Some of the findings were made public in a Dec. 12 article in The New York Times; a spokesman for Mr. Rumsfeld dismissed the report at the time as “unfounded allegations against those who have served our nation.”<br /><br />The Senate report documented how some of the techniques used by the military at prisons in Afghanistan and at the naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, as well as in Iraq — stripping detainees, placing them in “stress positions” or depriving them of sleep — originated in a military program known as Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape, or SERE, intended to train American troops to resist abusive enemy interrogations.<br /><br />According to the Senate investigation, a military behavioral scientist and a colleague who had witnessed SERE training proposed its use at Guantánamo in October 2002, as pressure was rising “to get ‘tougher’ with detainee interrogations.” Officers there sought authorization, and Mr. Rumsfeld approved 15 interrogation techniques.<br /><br />The report showed that Mr. Rumsfeld’s authorization was cited by a United States military special-operations lawyer in Afghanistan as “an analogy and basis for use of these techniques,” and that, in February 2003, a special-operations unit in Iraq obtained a copy of the policy from Afghanistan “that included aggressive techniques, changed the letterhead, and adopted the policy verbatim.”<br /><br />Months later, the report said, the interrogation officer in charge at Abu Ghraib obtained a copy of that policy “and submitted it, virtually unchanged, through her chain of command.” This ultimately led to authorization by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez of the use of stress positions, “sleep management” and military dogs to exploit detainees’ fears, the report said.<br /><br />“The paper trail on abuse leads to top civilian leaders, and our report connects the dots,” Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said on Tuesday in a conference call with reporters. “This report, in great detail, shows a paper trail going from that authorization” by Mr. Rumsfeld “to Guantánamo to Afghanistan and to Iraq,” Mr. Levin said.<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22report.html?_r=1&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=printThe New York Timeshttp://www.nytimes.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857123170199752437.post-4575140130240537202009-04-22T00:39:00.000-07:002009-04-22T00:39:00.000-07:00El papel de los psicólogos en las torturas impulsa...El papel de los psicólogos en las torturas impulsadas por Bush<br /><br />Según los papeles desclasificados por Obama, eran clave con los prisioneros<br />El presidente abre la puerta a posibles acciones judiciales contra responsables legales<br /><br />Por WILLIAM SALETAN* (SLATE)<br />Actualizado 21-04-2009 18:51 CET<br /><br />Estos días se ha conocido con mucho detalle que la CIA ordenó aplicar distintos métodos coercitivos —directamente tortura en muchas ocasiones— a presuntos miembros de Al Qaeda. Obama ha defendido la publicación de los informes secretos, pero anunció que no enjuiciaría a los agentes responsables. Sin embargo, hoy mismo Obama ha dejado una puerta abierta a posibles acciones judiciales contra los oficiales de la Administración Bush que dieron soporte legal a estas torturas. En este texto que ahora publicamos se relata la importancia y el papel que han desempeñado los psicólogos en estas torturas. <br /><br />Cuando llegue el momento de torturar a un detenido, asegúrate de que se envía al especialista indicado: un psicólogo.<br /><br />En la edición del pasado sábado del Washington Post, Joby Warrick y Peter Finn informaban de que el último montón de memorandos de tortura de la Administración Bush "muestra un flujo constante de psicólogos, médicos y otros funcionarios del sector sanitario que, por un lado, mantuvieron con vida a detenidos y, por otro, participaron al tiempo activamente en el diseño del programa de interrogatorios y el control sobre cómo se implementaba". En concreto:<br /><br />"El 1 de agosto de 2002, un memorando decía que la CIA contaba con 'psicólogos in situ' para que ayudaran a diseñar e implementar un programa de interrogatorio para [el detenido y supuesto miembro de Al Qaeda] Abu Zubaida, que, en última instancia, proponía 10 métodos tomados del programa de entrenamiento militar de EEUU conocido como SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape, Supervivencia, Evasión, Resistencia y Escape). Dicho programa, empleado para contribuir a preparar a pilotos para soportar la tortura en caso de una eventual captura, está ligeramente inspirado en técnicas que usó la China comunista para torturar a prisioneros de guerra norteamericanos… Los psicólogos de la CIA tenían experiencia personal en SERE y ayudaron a persuadir a los funcionarios de la CIA de que las tácticas severas coaccionarían a Abu Zubaida sin infligirle daños permanentes."<br /><br />Atención al cambio radical en el propósito. SERE fue desarrollado para estudiar métodos de tortura con el fin de que los pilotos pudieran resistirlos. Pero llegamos a adquirir un grado tan alto de comprensión de estas técnicas, y nos impresionó tanto su eficacia, que comenzamos a aplicarlas a nuestros propios detenidos. La tortura como ciencia llevó a la tortura como tecnología. Esto ocurre con frecuencia con la pericia: la adquirimos con un propósito pero pronto la adaptamos a otro; en este caso, justo al propósito contrario.<br /><br />Warrick y Finn prosiguen: "El memorando establece que la técnica de tortura de asfixia simulada conocida como submarino mojado fue proclamada como especialmente eficaz porque "se dijo que fue casi 100% efectiva para conseguir la colaboración" . La agencia se valió entonces de un informe psicológico de Abu Zubaida para averiguar sus puntos vulnerables. Uno de ellos resultó ser fobia a los bichos. "Parece tener miedo a los insectos", expone el memorando, que describe un plan para introducir una oruga o una criatura similar en el cajón de madera donde estaba confinado el prisionero. Funcionarios de la CIA aseguran que este plan nunca se llevó a cabo."<br /><br />De nuevo, fijaos en la facilidad con que se trastoca la pericia. En psicología clínica el tratamiento se adapta a cada paciente. Un psicoterapeuta no establece principios generales: explora tus particulares miedos. La cuestión es ayudarte. Pero, como identificar miedos es una habilidad, puede volverse en tu contra con igual facilidad.<br /><br />También se dijo a los interrogadores que podían explotar el miedo del detenido a ser visto desnudo por mujeres, tal como sostiene Jeffrey Smith, del Washington Post. A lo que sea que temas, ahí meteremos el dedo en la llaga.<br /><br />La mayor parte del alboroto en torno a los memorandos de tortura se centra en la violencia que consienten. Pero el objetivo de un interrogatorio con tortura no es la violencia. Es la cooperación. La cooperación es un acto mental. Podría patearte la cabeza, pero seguramente todo quedaría hecho un asco y acabaría siendo peliagudo dar cuentas a los servicios sanitarios. Preferiría soslayar tu cuerpo e ir directamente a por lo que se niega a cooperar: tu mente. Ahí es donde entra en juego el psicólogo. Me dice cómo infligirte una angustia insoportable sin necesidad de recurrir a la violencia, o, al menos, sin dejar el rastro de cicatrices visibles.<br /><br />Incluso con violencia de por medio, la vía pretendida es psicológica. Aquí tenemos al anterior director de la CIA, Michael Hayden, en el programa Fox News Sunday, explicando por qué se opuso a desclasificar los memorandos de tortura el pasado domingo: "Para nuestros enemigos, lo que hemos descrito en plena guerra son los límites más extremos, que ningún norteamericano llegaría a traspasar al interrogar a un terrorista de Al Qaeda. La naturaleza de esta información es muy valiosa. Ahora bien: eso no quiere decir que siempre llegáramos a esos límites, pero define el ámbito donde los norteamericanos no se moverían más allá. En mi opinión, esta información es muy útil para nuestros enemigos, independientemente de que, como asunto político, el presidente de turno decidiera no emplear ni una, ni varias, ni ninguna de dichas técnicas." <br /><br />En otras palabras: la CIA quiere que los detenidos vivan en el terror de conjeturar qué les podríamos llegar a hacer. Aunque tengamos políticas que nos prohíban herirles o hacerles daño de una o otra forma física, desde un punto de vista psicológico no debemos permitir que lo sepan. Queremos crear en su imaginación un horizonte de posibles horrores, una pesadilla peor que la realidad.<br /><br />La tortura es mental. Ésa es la razón por la que la CIA se valió de psicólogos —y también por eso las investigaciones en torno al programa de tortura de Bush deben ir más allá de indagar en la violencia que aplicamos en realidad—.<br /><br />Artículo originalmente publicado en el medio digital estadounidense Slate.<br /><br />(Traducción: Carola Paredes)<br /><br />http://www.soitu.es/soitu/2009/04/21/actualidad/1240332672_774372.htmlRoberto Ortiz-Felicianohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10712890752942849773noreply@blogger.com