Photographs

If you haven’t already, go read Jane Mayer’s article on our methods of torture. The short version: we’re using psychological methods to impose "learned helplessness" and dependency, and as a result, we’re getting some intelligence, a whole lot of garbage, and we’re turning our own interrogators into moral zombies.

I wanted to focus on one aspect of the calculated humiliation she describes:

A former member of a C.I.A. transport team has described the “takeout”of prisoners as a carefully choreographed twenty-minute routine, duringwhich a suspect was hog-tied, stripped naked, photographed, hooded,sedated with anal suppositories, placed in diapers, and transported byplane to a secret location.

[snip]

The interrogation became a process not just of getting information butof utterly subordinating the detainee through humiliation.” The formerC.I.A. officer confirmed that the agency frequently photographed theprisoners naked, “because it’s demoralizing.” The person involved inthe Council of Europe inquiry said that photos were also part of theC.I.A.’s quality-control process. They were passed back to caseofficers for review. [my emphasis]

Part of the very calculating treatment we give these detainees is photographing them, both to humiliate them and for "quality-control." (Quality control of what? Is this like glorified meat inspection?)

I wanted to call attention to these passages because of the dust-up Read more

Well, Of Course

Holden asks:

They’re just thinking of this now?

U.S.military intelligence officials are urgently assessing how securePakistan’s nuclear weapons would be in the event President Gen. PervezMusharraf were replaced as the nation’s leader, CNN has learned.

Key questions in the assessment include who would control Pakistan’s nuclear weapons after a shift in power.

[snip]

The United States has full knowledge about the location of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, according to the U.S. assessment.

Butthe key questions, officials say, are what would happen and who wouldcontrol the weapons in the hours after any change in government in caseMusharraf were killed or overthrown.

Musharraf controls theloyalty of the commanders and senior officials in charge of the nuclearprogram, but those loyalties could shift at any point, officials say.

TheUnited States is not certain who might start controlling nuclear launchcodes and weapons if that shift in power were to happen.

There isalso a growing understanding according to the U.S. analysis thatMusharraf’s control over the military remains limited to certain topcommanders and units, raising worries about whether he can maintaincontrol over the long term.

Well, of course, Holden. They’ve been otherwise occupied. Up until the end of June, after all, they were very busy looking for Iraq’s WMDs.

Though, for a less snarky look at this issue, Arms Control Wonk discusses the difference between knowing where the nukes are and what will happen to them if anything should happen to Musharraf.

Crappy Product, Crappy Marketing Company

As many of you know, I used to do work for the auto industry. And I can assure you, the single most important thing Ford could do to turn itself around would be to fire its long-time ad company, J Walter Thompson. Everyone knows it, too, in all parts of the world. From local to regional to global, folks in the auto industry know that JWT keeps designing Ford crappy campaigns based on one generic consumer, even though not all of Ford’s vehicles (and none of the vehicles with any growth potential) are really targetted toward that one generic consumer. And just as awful, JWT does much of the consumer analysis that leads Ford to keep designing cars for non-existent consumers. Sad thing is, the JWT contract is the only one that seems to escape evaluation, even as all the auto companies strip one after another contractor of their contract. For some reason, Ford is committed to JWT, even if it means failure as a company.

I couldn’t help but think of Ford and JWT as I skimmed the RAND study on how to brand the Iraq War more effectively. I got the same sinking feeling as I have gotten about Read more

Bush’s Cheney’s Signing Statement on the Geneva Convention

It’s really tough sorting out the new Executive Order on torture. But after a whole day of pondering the details, I think I’m finally getting it. It’s yet another Bush signing statement, this time to record his own personal interpretation of the Geneva Convention. After all–that’s where this new EO came from: after SCOTUS, in Hamdan, told Bush that all detainees were covered by the Geneva Convention, after Congress, with the Military Commissions Act, told Bush he could shred concepts like habeas corpus but only if he had documentation for doing so, he was forced to write this new EO.

Charlie Savage provides a good overview:

Bush’s executive order laid out broad guidelines for how the CIAmust treat detainees in its secret overseas prisons, where theadministration has held some suspects without giving them access to theRed Cross. The document prohibits a range of abuses, including"intentionally causing serious bodily injury" and "forcing theindividual to perform sexual acts," as well as mistreating the Koran.

Theorder also said the CIA director must personally approve the use ofextraordinary interrogation practices against any specific detainee.Detainees must also receive "adequate food and water, shelter from theelements, necessary clothing, protection from extremes of heat andcold, and essential medical care," it said.

But most of thepresident’s executive order is written in generalities, leavingunanswered whether the CIA will be free to subject prisoners to a rangeof specific techniques it has reportedly used in the past, includinglong-term sleep disruption, prolonged shackling in painful stresspositions, or "waterboarding," a technique that produces the sensationof drowning.

That is, some of the most obvious abuses–using sex and religion–are now forbidden. But the key information, what remains permitted, is in a separate, classified list that we don’t get to see. And three other key details: the Executive Order explicitly denies any legal responsibilities associated with the EO, so even if some overzealous torturer ignores it, he’s not going to jail. The Red Cross remains unable to monitor prisoners in this newfangled "enhanced interrogation" program. And Congress still doesn’t have a copy of the DOJ opinion on the program. For that matter, Karen DeYoung reports that the Administration hasn’t responded to Congress’ other questions, either.

They said the administration has not responded to the questions theyasked during a recent briefing on the new order and the detaineeprogram.

Mind you, this is the DOJ review that Congress mandated as part of the Military Commissions Act. But I guess that’s classified too.

Eric Edelman, Leaker Extraordinaire

I’ve been waiting to see if Pat Lang weighed in on the Hillary letter controversy because he’s the blogosphere’s expert (indeed, an expert in any venue) on the hazards of supply lines and withdrawal. And his response is as good as I expected, starting with his citation of the constitutional basis for Hillary’s inquiry. But I wanted to make explicit one of the criticisms that Lang makes only implicitly. He says:

Senator Clinton had every right to ask if there were seriouscontingency plans being made about HOW we would withdraw from Iraq.  Acivil and constitutionally correct response to her question would nothave required a public and unclassified answer.  So far as I know, shedoes not have a record of unauthorized disclosure of classifiedinformation.  Others do, (and not all of them in the Congress), but shedoes not.

[snip]

As Senator Clinton has observed, "You don’t snap your fingers, andbegin to withdraw."  In fact, a prudent program of withdrawal wouldrequire many months.  Such contingency plans would rightly be keptsecret for the reasons that Edelman mentions.  Secrets can be kept. Edelman knows that.  It is not true that everything "leaks" to themedia. [my emphasis]

Lang is talking about the suggestion in Edelman’s letter

As you know, Read more

Did Eric Edelman Steal Robert Gates’ Mail?

I’ve been following the little squabble between Cheney hack Eric Edelman and Hillary. There was his nasty letter and Hillary’s excellent response. Now Gates has entered the fray, embracing oversight and (backhandedly) slapping down the nasty Edelman.

I have long been a staunch advocate of Congressional oversight, firstat the CIA and now at the Defense Department. I have said on severaloccasions in recent months that I believe that congressional debate onIraq has been constructive and appropriate. I had not seen SenatorClinton’s reply to Ambassador Edelman’s letter until today. I amlooking into the issues she raised and will respond to them early nextweek. [my emphasis]

Now, I’m a little confused by that bolded line, explaining that Gates hadn’t seen Hillary’s letter. From the context, he appears to be referring to Hillary’s July 19 letter, the nasty-gram telling on Edelman. But that doesn’t entirely make sense. Of course he hadn’t seen Hillary’s letter until today (meaning yesterday). She only wrote it the day before.

Anne Kornblut reads that sentence differently.

In a statement, Gates said that he had not seen Clinton’s originalletter, but he added that he welcomes congressional involvement.

Now, again, the plain English reading of the sentence says Kornblut is wrong and Gates is Read more

Edelman Says: “Congressional Oversight Emboldens Our Enemies”

Okay, Hillary didn’t adopt my recommended response to Eric Edelman’s insubordination. Well, she kind of does, insofar as she notes that Edelman is alone in spouting Cheneyisms:

Other members of this Administration have not engaged in politicalattacks when the prospect of withdrawal planning has been raised.

And she demands that Gates choose whether he supports Edelman’s insubordination.

I request that you describe whether Under Secretary Edelman’s letteraccurately characterizes your views as Secretary of Defense.

This is a particularly shrewd move, I think, because it forces Gates to disavow the Cheneyist wing–or face confrontation with Congress. Would that we had done this with Colin Powell, to make him disown John Bolton’s Cheneyesque rantings. It might have undercut Cheney’s strategy of having a plant in every agency to ensure his will is done. Let’s hope the strategy works in this case…

Oh, It Was Eric Edelman Lecturing Hillary??

Update: Thanks to Scarecrow for directing everyone over here–but don’t miss Hillary’s response to Edelman. She hits all the right notes.

I didn’t realize, at first, when I heard that Hillary had been lectured that public discussion of withdrawal reinforced enemy propaganda, who was doing the lecturing.

Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces fromIraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandonits allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam,Lebanon, and Somalia. Such talk understandably unnerves the very sameIraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks in orderto achieve compromises on national reconciliation, amending the Iraqiconstitution, and other contentious issues. Fear of a precipitate USwithdrawal also exacerbates sectarian trends in Iraqi politicians asfactions become more concerned with achieving short-term tacticaladvantages rather than reaching the long-term agreements necessary fora stable and secure Iraq.

But now I discover it was Eric Edelman, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. That makes a whole lot more sense–and really dictates the proper response.

You see, Edelman is kind of a poor man’s Dougie Feith. A total shill–and Cheney asset–though apparently with less flair for propaganda. He’s the bright guy who first suggested leaking Plame’s identity to Read more

A Field Position Game

Mark Kleiman argues that the Democrats should see BushCo’s refusal to turn over proof that they buried details about Pat Tillman’s death as a godsend. This is the scandal, he argues, over which the Democrats should choose to confront Bush.

This is a Godsend for the Democrats in Congress. The committeesshouldn’t compromise at all; this is the case we want to go to warover, in the courts and the court of public opinion. The Tillmancover-up is a far smaller scandal than the U.S. Attorney firings, butit’s much easier to understand.

Most of the country is only vaguely aware of the Tillman case, sincethe press has been not very interested in advertising how badly it wasfooled, and how supinely it participated in the "Wag the Dog" foolingof the public. But if the facts got out there, everyone, including mostof the Republican base, would be outraged. Publicity about the fightover documents and testimony is also publicity about Tillman’s"friendly fire" death and the effort to cover it up, so it’s a no-winsituation for the White House.

Moreover, even the wingnuts are going to have a hard time claimingwith a straight face that the President needs to protect theconfidentiality of the process by which he Read more

A Second Strategic Failure

I’m more and more convinced this is Dick Cheney’s design. Failure in Afghanistan, which might lead to the collapse of Pakistan’s western-friendly government, which might lead to a regional war between Sunni and Shiite.

Ashdown told The Observer that Afghanistan presented a graver threat than Iraq.

‘Theconsequences of failure in Afghanistan are far greater than in Iraq,’he said. ‘If we fail in Afghanistan then Pakistan goes down. Thesecurity problems for Britain would be massively multiplied. I thinkyou could not then stop a widening regional war that would start off inwarlordism but it would become essentially a war in the end betweenSunni and Shia right across the Middle East.’

‘Mao Zedong used torefer to the First and Second World Wars as the European civil wars.You can have a regional civil war. That is what you might begin to see.It will be catastrophic for Nato. The damage done to Nato inAfghanistan would be as great as the damage done to the UN in Bosnia.That could have a severe impact on the Atlantic relationship and maybeeven damage the American security guarantee for Europe.’

What other logic is there–besides pure stupidity–for ignoring nuclear-armed and increasingly extremist Pakistan–while ratcheting up war against Iran? Wasn’t this whole Middle Eastern fuckup Read more

image_print