Bush: U.S. "Does Not Torture"

President Defends Administration's Interrogation Policies Of Terror Suspects

(CBS/AP)  President Bush defended his administration's detention and interrogation policies for terrorism suspects on Friday, and insisted that the U.S. government does not engage in torture.

"When we find somebody who may have information regarding a potential attack on America, you bet we're going to detain them, and you bet we're going to question them," he said during a hastily called appearance in the Oval Office. "The American people expect us to find out information, actionable intelligence so we can help protect them. That's our job."

Mr. Bush was referring to a report on two secret memos in 2005 that authorized extreme interrogation tactics against terror suspects. "This government does not torture people," the president said.

Mr. Bush said the interrogations have produced information that has helped to protect the American people, though he offered no specifics, CBS News correspondent Bob Fuss reports.

The two Justice Department legal opinions were disclosed in Thursday's editions of The New York Times, which reported that the first 2005 legal opinion authorized the use of head slaps, freezing temperatures and simulated drownings, known as waterboarding, while interrogating terror suspects, and was issued shortly after then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales took over the Justice Department.

That secret opinion, which explicitly allowed using the painful methods in combination, came months after a December 2004 opinion in which the Justice Department publicly declared torture "abhorrent" and the administration seemed to back away from claiming authority for such practices.

A second Justice opinion was issued later in 2005, just as Congress was working on an anti-torture bill. That opinion declared that none of the CIA's interrogation practices would violate the rules in the legislation banning "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment of detainees, The Times said, citing interviews with unnamed current and former officials.

"We stick to U.S. law and international obligations," the president said, without taking questions afterward.

White House and Justice Department press officers have said the 2005 opinions did not reverse the 2004 policy.

Mr. Bush, speaking emphatically, noted that "highly trained professionals" conduct any questioning. "And by the way," he said, "we have gotten information from these high-value detainees that have helped protect you."

He also said that the techniques used by the United States "have been fully disclosed to appropriate members of the United States Congress" - an indirect slap at the torrent of criticism that has flowed from the Democratic-controlled Congress since the memos' disclosure.

"The American people expect their government to take action to protect them from further attack," Mr. Bush said. "And that's exactly what this government is doing. And that's exactly what we'll continue to do."

House Democrats demanded Thursday that the Justice Department turn over the two secret memos.

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., promised a congressional inquiry into the two Justice Department legal opinions that reportedly "explicitly authorized the use of painful and psychological tactics on terrorism suspects."

"Both the alleged content of these opinions and the fact that they have been kept secret from Congress are extremely troubling, especially in light of the department's 2004 withdrawal of an earlier opinion similarly approving such methods," House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., wrote in a letter Thursday to Acting Attorney General Peter D. Keisler.

The two Democrats also asked that Steven Bradbury, the Justice Department's acting chief of legal counsel, "be made available for prompt committee hearings."

The issue quickly hit the presidential campaign trail.

"The secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security," Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said in a statement. "We must do whatever it takes to track down and capture or kill terrorists, but torture is not a part of the answer - it is a fundamental part of the problem with this administration's approach."

[bareemperor]

Google ''Donald Vance''

Then tell me that Bu$h isn''t lying.

[bareemperor]

...and Bu$h isn''t a liar...

[pastdue1]

" But what the Veterans'' revealed so strikingly was the disgust these former interrogators-- in a war that posed a greater threat to America''s survival than the so-called "war on terror"--have for the cruel, inhuman, degrading and illegal techniques called for --and condoned-- by the Bush Administration." Yahoo News

These WWII interrogators gave this assessment of Bush and Gonzales'' authorization of techniques used in interrogations. Those who claim that the WWII veterans are for what this administration stands for are completely out of the park.

[starleo146]

Posted by tuckerndfw at 07:40 PM : Oct 06, 2007


I am so glad you found them interesting as I did. I talked so ugly to singinrick yesterday I felt bad all day, so I found this for all to see. Your comments were so right, thanks, and I want to apologize for my bad language yesterday to all I hate it when that happens, I got to keep better control or ignore her one or the other it is hard to do though.

[abbe91]

When Bush lies, guess what ... it''s free speech.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003654541

Oh, lyingrick, muddyrose, larseneffect must be so happy. Their lies are now protected.

[michellem99-2009]

Yes they do.

[vote4paul]

*** STOP THE WAR & END CORPORATE CORRUPTION ***

Who Is Paying For Your Vote To Keep Control Of You And To Keep This War Going? Remember The Bankers Hold The Stock In Companies That Are Getting Billions In War Contracts!
Obama''s Contributers: Bankers / Special interest!
http://tinyurl.com/2nd4f8

Hillary Clinton''s Contributers Lawyers / RealEstate:
http://tinyurl.com/2ontpq

Rudy GIULIANI Contributors: Bankers / Hedge Funds!
http://tinyurl.com/2m2c4n

Ron Pauls Money Is From the People! We have someone who is NOT Paid Off By Special Interest or Bankers Money!!!
http://tinyurl.com/2q8vr3

If you ever want this War to End Vote Ron Paul 2008, No One Else Is Going To End It!
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues

Ron Paul Will:

** Stop Iraq War Immediately
** Eliminate IRS
** Eliminate Federal Reserve
** Eliminate Government Wasteful Spending
** Restore America''s Work Force & Values
** Restore America''s Freedom!

RON PAUL RAISES $5.1 MILLION 3RD Q!

It''s Not About Democrat Or Republican. It Is About
the People And Ron Paul Is America''s Last Hope!

********* VOTE RON PAUL 2008! *********

Join A ReVoLuTiOn Group In Your City:
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/cities/

[starleo146]

Also testifying was Bunnatine Greenhouse. Greenhouse is the former highest-ranking civilian contracting official at the Army Corps of Engineers, so I''ll dispense with the "Greenhouse having gas" joke. But Greenhouse was removed from her position when she tried to crack down on "casual and clubby contracting practices" at the Army Corps of Engineers.

Also testifying was Robert Isakson who was a co-plaintiff in a "qui tam" lawsuit (a whistleblower lawsuit) against Custer Battles. No, "qui tam" is not that stuff that Chinese people do in the park, it''s shorthand for the Latin Phrase "qui tam pro domino quam pro seipso," which dates back to 13th century England, and means, "He who is as much for the King as for himself."

Today, a "qui tam" lawsuit is one brought under the False Claims Act by a private plaintiff on behalf of the Federal or State Government. Isakson won the first civil verdict for Iraq reconstruction fraud against Custer Battles. However, the verdict was overturned by the judge, who ruled that because the CPA was not part of the US government, the "qui tam" statute did not apply.

Meanwhile the Bush administration has not litigated a single case against a contractor alleged to have defrauded the US Government in Iraq. Apparently, like terrorism, this isn''t a law enforcement issue either.

[starleo146]

Donald Vance, a Navy veteran, was working for an Iraqi-owned outfit called the Shield Group Security Company. Vance said he witnessed Shield Group selling guns, land mines, and rocket-launchers to Iraqi insurgents, American soldiers, State Department workers, and Iraqi embassy and ministry workers. Vance described Shield Groups as "a Wal-Mart for guns."

Vance reported this to the FBI, and instead of a pat on the back, he got 97 days at Camp Cropper, a military prison outside of Baghdad. In fact, Saddam''s Hussein''s old crib. Vance was placed in solitary confinement, subjected to head-banging music blaring from dawn to dusk, and interrogators screaming the same questions over and over again in his face.

Also testifying at the hearing along with Vance was Barry Godfrey, a former KBR employee (KBR+Halliburton=Cheney) who claimed that he was fired after complaining to his supervisors about fraudulent overcharges.

[starleo146]

Last Friday morning the Senate Democratic Policy Committee held a hearing entitled "The Mistreatment of Iraq Contracting Whistleblowers," just in time to make the Friday news dump. According to the committee more than $10 billion dollars in Iraq reconstruction and military support contracts is unaccounted for.

In other words, for every six dollars spent in Iraq one dollar is in question. And folks, it''s a war-zone, you''re dealing with a culture known for its haggling skills, so you''ve got factor in a little skimming, but this is ridiculous. If you stole that much money from the Mafia you''d be dead.

[starleo146]

Stop Saying Iraq Is Another Vietnam; It''s Another Enron

By Bill Maher, HuffingtonPost.com. Posted September 29, 2007.

Bush is fighting a war with phony accounting tricks. They fudged the numbers to get us into Iraq

Iraq is Enron, and President Bush is Ken Lay. He''s fighting a war with phony accounting tricks. The Bush administration fudged the numbers to get us into Iraq, and cooked the books to keep us there. "The surge" is simply another in a long series of inflated stock quotes.

This past weekend Marcel Marceau passed away at age 84. Doctors say he went quietly. Thus proving that evil thrives when good men stay silent. And just like with Enron, the good men and women who are blowing the whistle on Iraq contractor fraud are being vilified, fired, demoted, and those are the lucky ones.

[ajmarine1]

Now, I really have to go; it''s been a night.

Have a good one.

[ajmarine1]

I meant, "this supports some of "your" views."

[ajmarine1]

Iceman,

Vo Nguyen Giap and Van Tien Dung, How We Won the War. Philadelphia: Recon Publications, 1976. 63 pp.

This book has been the subject of several unfounded rumors on the Internet. The first one began in the late 1990s. Supposedly, General Giap had written in How We Won the War that in the aftermath of the Tet Offensive of 1968, the Communist leaders in Vietnam had been ready to abandon the war, but that a broadcast by Walter Cronkite, declaring the Tet Offensive a Communist victory, persuaded them to change their minds and fight on. This rumor was entirely false. Giap had not mentioned Cronkite, and had not said the Communists had ever considered giving up on the war.
Several variants of this rumor appeared in 2004. In these, Giap is supposed to have credited either the American anti-war movement in general, or John Kerry''s organization (Vietnam Veterans Against the War) in particular, for persuading the Communist leaders to change their minds and not give up on the war. Giap is sometimes said to have made this statement in How We Won the War, sometimes in an unnamed 1985 memoir. All versions of the rumor are false. Neither in How We Won the War, nor in any other book (the 1985 memoir is entirely imaginary), has Giap mentioned Kerry or Vietnam Veterans Against the War, or said that the Communist leaders had ever considered giving up on the war.

http://www.clemson.edu/caah/history/facultypages/EdMoi
se/commlead.html

This supports some of views.

[iceman_1960]

I just ordered Giap''s "How We Won The War" from amazon.com.

The seller will be shipping it on 10/10.

I may still go to the library tomorrow, but I''d like the book around for future reference.

That Wikipedia text was probably copied verbatim from some unreliable source, because the CNN interview it cites is wholly different, with a victorious attitude on Giap''s talk, none of this "We were on the ropes" stuff, although it mentions "American living rooms."

Incidentally, Bush was in Arab living rooms recently, for a similar reason.

[ajmarine1]

If you''''re right, you''''ll be the first one I tell.

Ditto if you''''re wrong.

Posted by Iceman_1960 at 04:04 AM : Oct 06, 2007,

Fair enough.

I have no hidden agenda, I''m just looking for stimulating conversation. This whole thing got started because someone brought up Kerry''s name; I still say his medals and purple hearts are alittle fishy.

[iceman_1960]

"The Tet Offensive is a long story... It was our policy, drawn up by Ho Chi Minh, to make the Americans quit. Not to exterminate all Americans in Vietnam, [but] to defeat them.

It could be said [Tet] was a surprise attack which brought us a big victory. For a big battle we always figured out the objectives, the targets, so it was the main objective to destroy the forces and to obstruct the Americans from making war. But what was more important was to de-escalate the war -- because at that time the American were escalating the war -- and to start negotiations. So that was the key goal of that campaign. But of course, if we had gained more than that it would be better.

And [after Tet] the Americans had to back down and come to the negotiating table, because the war was not only moving into the cities, to dozens of cities and towns in South Vietnam, but also to the living rooms of Americans back home for some time. And that''s why we could claim the achievement of the objective."

CNN interview of General Giap

Nothing about this b.s. with "Oh we were about to surrender... Then we say Walter Cronkite on TV... The demonstrations..."

None of that baloney at all.

[iceman_1960]

You still here, AJMarine1 ?

Your Wikipedia text cites as a source, this Giap interview at CNN, where he says this:

"When American combat forces were committed, it was a myth that we could not fight and win because they were so powerful. ... [We survived] because of our courage and determination, together with wisdom, tactics and intelligence. During the attacks of B-52s, we shot down a few B-52s and captured documents. One of them was a order by the [U.S.] air command about the targets to be bombed in and around Hanoi and the positions of [our] forces. Some [of the figures] were correct, [but] some were wrong because of our deception [measures]. And our conclusion was that with such anti-air-power measures, the B-52 is not an effective way to fight.

... We had ingenuity and the determination to fight to the end."

[iceman_1960]

RE: Post by AJMarine1 at 03:44 AM : Oct 06, 2007

I don''t trust your sources. Sorry.

Tomorrow I am going to track the book down at my library. Failing that, I am going to order it at amazon.com.

If you''re right, you''ll be the first one I tell.

Ditto if you''re wrong.

[ajmarine1]

In his book Giap indicates that NVA troops were without sufficient supplies. Morale was low. General Giap and the NVA viewed the Tet ''68 offensive as a costily military failure, and they were prepared to negotiate a surrender within a few months. Then, they heard Walter Cronkite (former CBS News anchor and correspondent) on TV proclaiming the success of the Tet ''68 offensive by the communist NVA. They were amazed to hear reports of the US Embassy being overrun when they knew the NVA had not gained access to the building itself. Further reports indicated riots and protests on the streets of America.

According to Giap, these distorted reports were inspirational to the NVA. The American media were doing more for their cause than could any military victory. The NVA leadership decided then to persevere, anticipating that the protesters in America would help them achieve a victory they could not win on the battlefield. This decision was made at a time when the U.S. battlefield casualties were fewer than 10,000, from the end of 1967 to beginning of 1968.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vo_Nguyen_Giap