Interrogation: The Past, Present & Future

Andrew Cohen On How The Bush Administration's Interrogation Policies Went So Wrong

(CBS)  Attorney Andrew Cohen analyzes legal issues for CBS News and CBSNews.com.

---

It is only through the work of historians that history seems linear to us living here in the present. The scholars are the ones who from a different time discern grand patterns or take large meaning from small things. Trying to understand the links between cause and effect in our own time, of course, is usually a bit less satisfying.

That's why the confluence of three important scholarly works just emerging into print is so extraordinary. The pieces - two books and a brilliant magazine story - aren't just individually significant. Together they give us a rare, contemporary, linear view of the Bush administration's interrogation policies, the horrible practices they spawned and what good might have happened, earlier, had those in power not pushed to implement misguided.

First comes The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration, an insider's critical account of the reckless disregard for tradition and legal precedent which seeped into the White House and Justice Department during the years immediately following the terror attacks on America. Written by Jack Goldsmith, a former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, the book focuses upon people like David Addington, who is now the vice president's chief of staff.

Addington, otherwise known as "Cheney's Cheney," is the man who famously uttered the phrase that may end up as an epitaph of the executive branch's disdain for a responsible separation of powers: "We're going to push and push until some larger force makes us stop." What he meant was that the White House would secretly allow warrantless domestic surveillance that violated federal law and interrogation policies that any reasonable person would consider torture.

Goldsmith positions himself as the good guy in the story; a man who ultimately aligned himself with the rule of law instead of with the forces pushing for even more excess in presidential power. But David Cole, the Georgetown law professor who has been a forceful critic of the government's anti-terror policies, and who has gone to court to stop some of them, this past week wrote that Goldsmith’s self-professed heroics were far less significant than he claims: the government’s interrogation policies could have been even worse, Cole writes.

But they were bad enough. How do we know? Because of Tara McKelvey’s simply-written book, Monstering: Inside America’s Policy of Secret Interrogations and Torture in the Terror War. If Goldsmith's book identifies the "how" and the "why" of our terror policies, McKelvey's book offers ample evidence of the effect those policies caused; upon Iraqis and our own troops. Chapter by grisly chapter, McKelvey chronicles the episodes of torture, and worse, that our troops and civilian contractors inflicted upon Iraqis, guilty and innocent, following Saddam Hussein's fall.

The link between Addington's policies and what happened at Abu Ghraib is incontrovertible. And McKelvey also does us a favor by destroying the government-sponsored myth that rogue soldiers and contractors were responsible for the abuse. There is a paper trail that leads directly from Addington and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld right down to the ground in downtown Baghdad. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote: "The government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or ill it teaches the whole people by example… To declare that the end justifies the means - to declare that the government may commit crimes - would bring terrible retribution."

The "terrible retribution" we earned for our nation's interrogation policies wasn't just the exposure of abuse at Abu Ghraib and the worldwide condemnation it brought us. It was the way Iraqis reacted to the news about the abuse. As McKelvey points out, Iraqis who before Abu Ghraib chose not to fight the Americans were incensed by the way their "liberators" were treating them at the prison. This caused many of them to take up arms against U.S. soldiers and other American personnel. And our troops and their families and friends have paid an awful price for that.

Would it have happened anyway? Would the Iraqis have begun to mortally resent us if the scandal at Abu Ghraib had never occurred? What would Iraq be like today if our government had not chosen to unleash its interrogation hounds against Iraqi civilians? We will never know for sure. But, remarkably, we can find some pretty significant clues about an answer in The New Yorker magazine about the American "surge" in Iraq.

Anderson details the ways in which the new strategic initiative in Iraq is succeeding - and why. And in doing so, he helps prove what might have occurred had the Americans treated intelligence-gathering in Iraq with more carrots and fewer electric sticks. To the extent that the surge is working, Anderson suggests, it is because U.S. troops on the ground are far more attuned to the nuances of the relationships between and among Iraqis and have learned how to exploit those relationships to their advantage.

It's not a softer and gentler American presence - it's called a surge, after all. But it is a smarter one. And it is one that has emerged since the interrogation and torture directives penned by Addington and Company have been supplanted by more humane (and perhaps legal) ones. So there you have it all in a week's worth of reading: the cause of our doomed and twisted interrogation policies, the effect those policies had upon Real World Baghdad, and how things could have been, should have been different. It's a first-draft of history that is likely to hold up well with the passage of time.

[quatrops]

In his 6:59 and in a number of previous posts, Robisch suggests that most (if not all) of the criticism of Bush & Co. seen in the "Comments" section is partisan rather than being objective commentary. I disagree with that judgement. Yes, there is a certain amount of partisan commentary from both the left and the right, but there is much objectivity also.

You seem to me, Alan, to have an almost knee-jerk defensiveness when it comes to criticism of Bush that appears to contradict the otherwise objective observations you make on some other topics. That, to me, is partisanship.

Today''s AP/Yahoo poll (minimal % error) indicates 77% of voters feel Bush has taken the country in the wrong direction. 60% of Republican voters feel the same. That''s not partisan, that''s real!

I was a 9th-grade "social studies" student for the Truman/Dewey contest in ''48. I recall the class discussions that ensued post election, particularly the (Chicago Trib.?) headline, "Dewey Wins!" We all learned something about objectivity in politics.

Since my first vote in ''56, I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats in presidential, congressional, and local elections.

So we''ll have to agree to disagree. I find George Bush to be grossly incompetent both as a president and as a man. I find Cheney manipulative and evil. Lastly, I find the fact that the Bush family fortune started with Prescott Bush''s lucrative business dealings with the Nazis in the ''30s most troubling.

[logicanada]

alanrobisch2...try reading The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Kline.
It will explain to you much better than I how the U.S (and other western powers,Britain for example) under the mandate of Friedman and ''The Chicago Boys'' have spread Freedom and democracy,using shock and awe.
Your military intervention abroad over the past 50 years has been nothing more than a brutal enforcement and a rebel pacifier for the furtherance of corporate greed.
First they create resistance, then they arm the resistance and teach them to pacify(read show example by torture) the population. Then they go in and rebuild using private contractors.
Friedman instructed Thatcher in this and she tried it.
As in every other case the economy tanked, the middle class disappeared and the corporations profited.
A fine example of it happening in the U.S right now is the emergence of many voucher schools in Louisianna after Katrina. The people will never return there but resorts will spring up everywhere.There will be plenty of poor willing to work the service jobs.
But you knew all that, right?

[alanrobisch]

Share with us, if you will, what will be the achievements of George Bush that will qualify him to be considered "great" when historians look back in 4 or 5 decades?

Posted by Quatrops at 12:46 AM : Nov 21, 2007

By no means do I think he will ever be considered a great president but Harry Truman was greatly disliked and narrowly won re-election in 1948 and had a 22% popularity rating when he left office. The final assesment if there is such a thing will be made who are not touched by partisan emotions. When I was in college many years ago Truman was considered one of our better presidents.

[alanrobisch]

they''''re trying to ban science in schools down there.

Posted by logicanada at 10:09 PM : Nov 20, 2007

You don''t seem to be very logical in your attacks. I like logic not spleen or personal attacks. I don''t know you from adam yet it seems your pov is anti-american note your latest note about all the wars we have been in. You know canadian history much better than I but I do know that when you are not as large as we are. we are expected to take the lead in solving international problems canada does not need to nor does it need to provide its military help if it choses not to. Also the fact that we have been in the wars you stated may mean as in 1992 we needed to or in Korea we needed to stand by an ally. In as much as canadians were there on D-day there are many more americans buried in France than Canadians Ditto during WW1. Be clear this is no criticism of Canada just a fact. You might remember a minor dust called the cold war that americans used huge amounts of capital and lost many lives to prevent russia from becoming predominant in the world.

Canada neither has the resources or manpower to have this role.

Also you have incredible gall to state we are trying to spread totalitarianism. You know this isn''t the truth. We may want a peaceful middle east but when you consider the first most important step was a free election in Iraq and our major problem is the unwilingness of Shiites and sunnis to get along your statement is simply wrong

[quatrops]

That''s a really strange equation you make, Alan. Yes, great men can err; great presidents can exceed their authority. To suggest, then, that ANY president who errs and exceeds his authority is therefore a great man, a great president, is patently absurd.

Do you REALLY imagine historians will judge Bush a great president, the equivalent of Lincoln or FDR?

I''ll hold with my prediction, though I won''t be here to witness it. Bush will not only be seen as a failed incompetent, but one who allowed the fabric of our constitution and our democracy to be jeaprodized.

The achievements of both Lincoln and FDR don''t need enumerated. We all understand why they are considered great presidents.

Share with us, if you will, what will be the achievements of George Bush that will qualify him to be considered "great" when historians look back in 4 or 5 decades?

[logicanada]

alanrobisch2....two million dead Americans in ww2.
Maybe, and they died to prevent the spread of fascism. Now they are dying to spread totalitarianism.
Re Quebec, you seem to keep harping on that.
Approx 52% voter turnout for that vote, multiply by 49% is about 30.5% in favor. Get it yet?
As far as learning from your mistakes, your country has been involved in or instigated armed conflicts in over seventy countries since the fifties. You would think they would have it down to a science by now...but I forgot, they''re trying to ban science in schools down there.

[alanrobisch]

This is the same Bush that, at one time, promised us he was going to fire anyone involved. I guess "the decider" decided he didn''''t decide that. But, as he said, "That''''s the nice thing about being president."


Posted by Quatrops at 09:43 PM : Nov 20, 2007

If you noticed in his description of the writers that they are critics of the anti terror work done by the administration. Maybe this is why I can''t agree with you or if you have forgotten the great american president suspended habeas corpus during the civil war and FDR went along with the Jailing of the japaneese in America. We survived and we are and will still be free

[alanrobisch]

nobody is dying in quebec and you are an idiot...as always.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by logicanada at 07:18 PM : Nov 20, 2007

Thank you as usual for your insight. You seem to find it necessary to attack the person. You had told me in a previous post that it was only a few radical individuals that wanted a separate quebec yet I know that just slightly more than 50% voted against separation. I wanted your explanation of this. I get no explanation and now you call me an idiot. could this because this puts the shoe on the other foot and it makes it uncomfortable.

Note about 2,000,000 americans died or wounded in world war II. Many died due to blunders but because you object to this war the 3500 that have died in american uniform are somehow horrible. That many died in errors made by americans in wwII including cases where we bombed our own men

Also note It appears that we are at the beginning of a safer Iraq. It may not last but right now even the NYT has acknowledged this. I was not and am not an advocate of this war yet as Lincoln stated at Gettysburg he did not want these soldiers to have died in vain and for us to lose this war and leave a vacuum for al quaeda to strengthen themslves would mean that the men truly died in vain. I want to see a positive outcome. It seems many on these postings seem to want a withdrawal no matter the consequences

[quatrops]

Robisch @ 6:12 thinks I''m amazing for forecasting the future by suggesting future historians might find the Bush administration brought us to the brink of losing our democracy. Well, Alan, here''s another: the sun will come up tomorrow!

In turn, I think HE is amazing in his ability to review books he hasn''t read yet! He judges these to be "anti-war" books. From the CBS review, they would certainly seem to be taking a critical look at TORTURE and its use by the current regime, but I don''t (from the review) see an indication they are anti-war.

Anyway, Alan, if you like these books, I''m sure you will find Scott McClellan''s latest offering equally fascinating. For those of you that haven''t seen the publisher''s "teaser" yet, McClellan (former Bush aide)
apparently reveals that both Bush and Cheney were directly involved in the cover-up of the outing of the CIA agent.

This is the same Bush that, at one time, promised us he was going to fire anyone involved. I guess "the decider" decided he didn''t decide that. But, as he said, "That''s the nice thing about being president."

[doctor--o]

All of the right wing nuts responding to this article should experience a little enhanced interrogation(kinda like ''fair and balanced'')to help them get their collective head out of their rear end.
Defending torture - unbelievable.
To think torture is a positive or even justifiable step in any direction; - mindless, utterly mindless beyond words.