WASHINGTON, April 11, 2008
Cheney Approved Harsh Interrogations
Reports: Senior Officials Kept President Bush In Dark Over Meetings On "Torture" Tactics
-
Photo
U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Ex-Detainee Claims Torture
An innocent man held as a terror detainee for years says he was tortured by Americans. Scott Pelley reports, Sunday, March 30, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
-
Video
Is Waterboarding Torture?
"CBS News RAW": Sen. Ted Kennedy asks Attorney General Michael Mukasey if he would consider waterboarding torture if it was done to him.
-
Video
Ex-Agent: Waterboarding Useful
In discussing the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah, an alleged high-ranking member of al Qaeda, former CIA agent John Kiriakou tells Harry Smith the practice is torture, but sometimes necessary.
-
Interactive
Second In Command
A closer look at Vice President Dick Cheney's career and his much-publicized health problems.
-
Special Report
War On Terror
Complete coverage of the military's battle against terrorism.
The officials also took care to insulate President Bush from a series of meetings where CIA interrogation methods, including waterboarding, which simulates drowning, were discussed and ultimately approved.
A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the meetings described them Thursday to the AP to confirm details first reported by ABC News on Wednesday. The intelligence official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss the issue.
Between 2002 and 2003, the Justice Department issued several memos from its Office of Legal Counsel that justified using the interrogation tactics, including ones that critics call torture.
"If you looked at the timing of the meetings and the memos you'd see a correlation," the former intelligence official said. Those who attended the dozens of meetings agreed that "there'd need to be a legal opinion on the legality of these tactics" before using them on al Qaeda detainees, the former official said.
The meetings were held in the White House Situation Room in the years immediately following the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001. Attending the sessions were then-Bush aides Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
The White House, Justice and State departments and the CIA refused comment Thursday, as did a spokesman for Tenet. A message for Ashcroft was not immediately returned.
Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy lambasted what he described as "yet another astonishing disclosure about the Bush administration and its use of torture."
"Who would have thought that in the United States of America in the 21st century, the top officials of the executive branch would routinely gather in the White House to approve torture?" Kennedy said in a statement. "Long after President Bush has left office, our country will continue to pay the price for his administration's renegade repudiation of the rule of law and fundamental human rights."
The American Civil Liberties Union called on Congress to investigate.
"With each new revelation, it is beginning to look like the torture operation was managed and directed out of the White House," ACLU legislative director Caroline Fredrickson said. "This is what we suspected all along."
The former intelligence official described Cheney and the top national security officials as deeply immersed in developing the CIA's interrogation program during months of discussions over which methods should be used and when.
At times, CIA officers would demonstrate some of the tactics, or at least detail how they worked, to make sure the small group of "principals" fully understood what the al Qaeda detainees would undergo. The principals eventually authorized physical abuse such as slaps and pushes, sleep deprivation, or waterboarding. This technique involves strapping a person down and pouring water over his cloth-covered face to create the sensation of drowning.
Quote
ACLU legislative director
The small group then asked the Justice Department to examine whether using the interrogation methods would break domestic or international laws.With each new revelation, it is beginning to look like the torture operation was managed and directed out of the White House.
Caroline Fredrickson,ACLU legislative director
"No one at the agency wanted to operate under a notion of winks and nods and assumptions that everyone understood what was being talked about," said a second former senior intelligence official. "People wanted to be assured that everything that was conducted was understood and approved by the folks in the chain of command."
The Office of Legal Counsel issued at least two opinions on interrogation methods.
In one, dated Aug. 1, 2002, then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee defined torture as covering "only extreme acts" causing pain similar in intensity to that caused by death or organ failure. A second, dated March 14, 2003, justified using harsh tactics on detainees held overseas so long as military interrogators did not specifically intend to torture their captives.
In a column on the now-disgraced White House legal counsel who drafted the March 14 memo, CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen said the brilliance of the document was that it enabled the administration to "hold a duck in its hand and sell it to the rest of the government (at least temporarily) as a swan."
"When an attorney has bad facts, he argues the law; when he has bad law, he argues the facts. (Memo author John) Yoo had bad law but two really 'good' facts to offer: 1) the United States had been attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2001; 2) the attack had made the nation’s legal and political establishment willing (as it always is in times of war) to bend over backward in deference to a sitting president," Cohen said in his column.
Both legal opinions since have been withdrawn.
The second former senior intelligence official said rescinding the memos caused the CIA to seek even more detailed approvals for the interrogations.
The department issued another still-secret memo in October 2001 that, in part, sought to outline novel ways the military could be used domestically to defend the country in the face of an impending attack. The Justice Department so far has refused to release it, citing attorney-client privilege, and Attorney General Michael Mukasey declined to describe it Thursday at a Senate panel where Democrats characterized it as a "torture memo."
Not all of the principals who attended were fully comfortable with the White House meetings.
The ABC News report portrayed Ashcroft as troubled by the discussions, despite agreeing that the interrogations methods were legal.
"Why are we talking about this in the White House?" the network quoted Ashcroft as saying during one meeting. "History will not judge this kindly."
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 18
- next
See all 868 CommentsHe''s pure evil.
WHY DO MY DAUGHTERS BECOME LESBIANS?
GRRRRRRRRRR
It is long past time to start impeachment hearings, any politicians resisting them at this point are guilty of complicity in the crimes against humanity by the Bush administration.
What makes you a sucker is your belief that everyone who is kidnapped and tortured is a terrorist.
Since this is already public information, his admission is unnecessary, and in light of Pelosi''s unwillingness to impeach, pointless.
And they would have enjoyed your free sandwiches, sent you out for liquor, and while you were gone, laughed their buns off at how much of a scared sucker you are.
Slade? "Evil Roy" Slade? Gol darnit, I''da thunk you''d a been on Bush''s side... ; ) (just kidding)
An appropriate finale for Richard would be Impeachment, Conviction and a trip to Guantanamo Bay as a guest in one of "HIS" cells, and to experience first hand his "appropriate methods" of interrogation - perhaps then we would get the truth about the war, the oil, the no bid contracts, the energy policy, and all the other corruption and graft.
So when exactly did torture become a family value?
Posted by libsrweak at 02:19 AM
For the clueless. The opposition to our country''s use of torture has nothing to do with our concern for terrorists. It has to do with concern for our country and what it stands for. Obviously you don''t get it.
They think we should be allowed to torture our enemy, but our enemy shouldn''t.
How utterly sick is that?
It''s really amazing how mentally ill this country has become.
I didn''t know it was physically possible for so many people to become this mentally ill so fast.
Posted by HarryDoghiny at 03:31 AM
Haha... who the heck are YOU? Nobody? I thought so.
I absolutely guarantee you that this story will run as long as cbs wants it to run. Dork.
No one can seem to answer this question, what did Sadam due to the United States that warranted his removal ? Dump oil on the market that kept prices down???
What is missing that is even more interesting is the reply made to this statement, what were the next words spoken?
-------
Great, maybe TickingDick can come over and waterboard your daughter for a few days.
Maybe you can show him how you do it, and then you can him can do it together.
Then on Sunday, you can do it for your church and show them.
But they endorse McCain, who will continue their criminal policies unless they are stopped, and so it is in our interest that we impeach these people, and hold them responsible for their lies, treasons, and crimes against humanity, as an example for future idiots to consider before they start a "war" for their own profit.
Of course, since none of the dead are yours, you are OK with letting them off scott free.
no wonder she supports war torture.
she drank the whole barrel of Kool-aid.
probably still thinks there are WMD''s in Iraq.
let me guess....you live in Oklahoma.
Next lines;
"$50 bucks a gal, to fill your van!
Your daughter on her knees selling what she can"
Thanks to McCain, ''cause he''s your man"
And then when someone calls you on it, or tells you the truth, you cry and claim victim. LOL
Don''t worry, we''ve all got your number and have seen the routine a million times on here.
Why don''t you run along now and go spend a $100 filling up your Hummer or something.
So your son is in harm''s way, because of the lies told by the administration that sent him there, risking his life for nothing, and now that the lies are all public, still you support the people whose crimes caused this to happen?
I would then question your devotion to your son, since the president''s liars'' ability to escape responsibility for their crimes seems to be more important to you than your son''s life.
So advocating the bombing of a country that is no threat to you is "nice"?
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 18
- next
See all 868 Comments