Senate Armed Services Torture Hearing, Three

Graham: I understand from Schmitt-Furlow report that a dog was used in interrogation.

Beaver: I was not aware of it.

Graham when you said this didn’t happen at Gitmo, you’re not right.

Beaver: What was approved did not happen.

Graham Who did this?

Beaver: I don’t know.

Graham it was part of interrogation plan. Also strip-searched in front of female personnel. Based on this report we know in at least one interrogation dogs were used a person was stripped.

Beaver I haven’t read it, but I take your word for it.

Graham Mora, you spoke up, you continued to speak up, other lawyers continued to speak up, some of your criticism was listened to, they were ratcheted down.

Mora: I’m not sure

Graham They reevaluated the techniques, and a new group came up, Dalton. You were never involved in any final approval of new techniques.

Mora: that’s correct. To my knowledge, I thought draft was never finalized, not part of final approval.

Graham Dalton, Do you ever remember Miller going to Iraq?

Beaver: asked me to travel with him.

Graham: Sanchez said we need better intell. Was that the nature of the visit?

Beaver: A number of problems.

Graham: Any discussion of Muslims afraid of dogs? What did you tell them to do?

Beaver: I was appalled of detainees being held at core detainee area. I was disgusted that they were held like that.

Graham Do you think it’s an accident that the techniques: stripping in front of female personnel and dogs?

Beaver I was surprised to see Col Wood in Iraq, she had been in charge in Afghanistan when two detainees had died. I went up the chain, I knew in a Geneva setting it could be a problem.

Levin: You’ve heard that what happened at Gitmo did not constitute abuse.

Mora: Abuse occurred and potentially torture.

Levin: What was authorized, do you believe taht constitued abuse? Dogs? Nudity?

Mora: not under geneva.

Levin: Did not want service’s critical comments disseminated?

Dalton: Haynes did not want broad-based discussions of these issues.

Levin: did you read those memoranda objecting. those memoranda came before the decision of SecDef. This is one of the things that is new this morning. The protests came before and after 12/2/2002 memorandum. When that task force was appointed, prior to 12/2/02 those category 2 and some 3 techniques would be authorized, the JAG officers objected.

Dalton: Not all JAG.

Levin: From the services.

Dalton While they raised serious concerns. They suggested further legal and policy review.

Levin And you were undertaking until you were stopped.

Dalton Broad-based until you were stopped. I took it upon myself.

Levin: Weren’t you asked to give areview?

Dalton That was part of my job.

Levin Concerns with most of category 2. Were you troubled when you read that?

Dalton [nothing]

Levin: Were you troubled when the Chief of Army’s Intl Law div crosses line of humane treatment. You were being requested to approve something that in the judgment of that Chief would cross the line.

Dalton: Those were made without complete analysis being done. It was a concern. My own office had concerns. However, I felt we owed it to combatant commander to do a full review. Initial responses indicated there were concerns.

Levin You were stopped right in the middle of the review.

Dalton Of coordinating with the agencies.

Levin You were stopped during that review. Why’s that so hard to say "yes" if you were?

Dalton I want to be clear that what I was stopped from doing was engaging in a broad and open discussion.

Levin You were stopped from doing what you thought was appropriate from doing.

Dalton I was stopped from conducting the review.

Levin That you thought was appropriate?

Dalton Yes sir.

Levin What was the purpose of the dog? It wasn’t to scare?

Beaver: From perspective it was explained to me that purpose it could be used as perimeter security and if that unsettled detainee, it would serve a dual purpose. I know you don’t take dogs into detention cell. I was assured that that would not happen. I found out it happened. I was unaware of that at the time.

Levin: Was the purpose to keep the detainee unsettled? To induce stress?

Beaver: it may have.

Levin: Using detainees individual phobias such as fear of dogs to induce stress. That was the purpose stated in the request.

Beaver: I’m not disagreeing

Levin Dalton, did Haynes know services had real problems?

Dalton: those concerns were addressed without benefit of knowing what the safeguards would be. My staff briefed his staff.

McCaskill. Before you wrote your legal opinion you attended a meeting where couter-resistance was discussed. Do you remember that meeting?

Beaver: I started them in late August. They were my meetings. Brainstorming sessions. That there would be a more open discussion. That was a regularly scheduled meeting that Fredman who happened to come down that day, it wasn’t held for him.

McCaskill So CIA lawyer just invited in for meeting already planned. I need to know whether you think this recollection is flat wrong and not true. Attributed to you: We need to curb the harsher operations when Red Cross around. We must have support of DOD.

Beaver: Mr Pryor asked a similar question. I do not recall anything I said. What I believe I would have said is that when you are conducting an operation, you can’t disrupt an interrogation for this purpose.

McCaskill That’s not what this said.

Beaver I dont’ think I would have said something in that manner. They came in six week cycles. They might be there for six weeks. When they’re not there, you would do your more aggressive interrogation.

McCaskill Why would there be a problem? Why would you delineate harsh?

Beaver I’m just using it in context of this conversation. There were many engagements like that.

McCaskill, written by CID of DOD. These are criminal investigators who are trained in taking accurate notes.

Beaver I can’t recall what I said in a meeting.

McCaskill Part of their training is note-taking. Fredman said DOJ has provided much guidance. CIA not held to same rules. In past, DOD has moved them away from attention from ICRC. Upon questioning the DOD said Detainees merited no status under convention. Do you recall that?

Beaver: I don’t recall with any kind of specificity. Qahatni, which the law enforcement folks had custody of him, FBI and CITF did not allow ICRC to speak to him. ICRC was allowed to see him in brig. In July August, this particular detainee had been of interest to law enforcement and intelligence community. I can’t attribute anything Fredman said. DOD had different rules about ICRC.

McCaskill Chief interrogation control, Becker, videotapes subject to to much scrutiny in court.

McCaskil Law enforcement choose not to participate. It’s more ethical and moral as opposed to legal. Fredman; Videotaping of even totally legal techniques will look ugly. The implication is that there are illegal.

Beaver What he is saying is even if you have a legal custodial interrogation can make people uncomfortable. Video taping unnecessary. Close circuit TVs, watch 24/7. When you’ve never witnessed interrogation.

[from audience I object to this line of questioning." Defense counsel for Beaver. ]

Defense counsel: I object to my client being asked about what someone else said.

McCaskill I was asking you if these things were said in front of you, as the staff JAG, attributing some statements to you. Do you recall those statements being made. Fredman said this. In your capacity as the JAG at Gitmo Bay.

Beaver: non-attribution purposes so people could speak their minds and not worry about it being held against them. I wanted people to have a good collegial discussion. The law enforcement people were very unhappy with me. I thought it better to do in the light of day.

McCaskill. I think it important that law enforcement people were there, Like me, they have seen many many many interrogations. I think it important that they took notes. I’d like to read into the record. "This is the stuff Congressional hearings are made of. … seems to stretch beyond the bounds … would shock the conscience of this, someone needs to be considering how history will look back at this."

Beaver I invited them to put in writing so we could put it through to Miller, not a single person except in one occasion, came to me and said there’s a violation of the law. They never came to me and said there’s a violation of the law. If they felt the way at the time, they could have given me the same consideration I gave them."

Levin: Tab 11, a letter from CI taskforce, giving an assessment.

Beaver It was never shared with me. They never shared it in writing with me. Told by attorney at OGC that their objections were policy, not legal.

Levin You did not mean to suggest they never put it in writing did you? You were asked your opinion, they then were asked of their opinion. Dated November 4, a month prior to SecDef signing his memo.

Levin: Did you work to develop SOP?

Beaver: No, done by folks at interrogation cell. I had nothing to do with that.

Levin were you familiar with it?

Beaver: I recall seeing it. Some of the personnel on the intelligence side were preparing an SOP, so they wouldn’t be behind the timeline.

Levin Did you have conversations with them?

Beaver I told them they needed a SOP. What chain of command was.

Levin You never saw any of the drafts.

Beaver I can’t say with certainty.

Levin If you can read on page 2. Basis used is SERE. Is it possible you saw this?

Beaver: Never left Intell sector. Miller didn’t see it. Didn’t ever receive serious consideration.

Levin: Did you participate in drafting?

Beaver: Gave them legal piece of it. List of things from my briefing. Not this SOP. One that listed the procedures approved.

Levin Have you ever been asked to stop analyzing something that came up for your review.

Dalton Previous incident where I was told I could not attend inter-agency discussions.

Levin Let me asked before–have you ever been asked to stop analyzing something that came up for your review.

Dalton No.

Levin Two questions, Mora. You heard my description of your activities that came in January. Was that accurate. When Sec approved on December 2, he was handed hand-written note that said why is standing limited to 4 hours? What impact might that have?

Mora: I was shocked. Even though it may have been intended jocularly, it might invite people to go beyond limits.

Levin You said allies might stop supporting combat operations. That would put more troops in harms way. Do you have specific example?

Mora: One specific one, but I’d prefer to discuss in closed session.

Levin Meetings about Yoo memo.

Mora: One meeting. I felt memo was a travesty of applicable law. Very dangerous led into what we see here.

Levin You were not told of working group’s final product. How did final memo influence working group report.

Mora It was dispositive of all issues in working group memo.

Graham I can see why this hearing is important.  It’s very hard to interpret this.  Was McCain Detinee Treatment Act important?

Mora Yes. 

image_print
128 replies
  1. skdadl says:

    They’ve got this set up so that everybody but the bloggers can take time off to have lunch, run to the bank, do the laundry, etc.

  2. LS says:

    Shorter Dalton: I’m not a war criminal…Ahhhhhhhggggg….stop asking me these questions….Ahhhhhgggg…I’m just a lonely woman doing what they told me to do….Bwaaaaaaahhhh

  3. LS says:

    You were stopped. You were stopped. (Levin) Why is that so hard to say that?

    I…I…I…I was stopped from conducting the broad based review that I was instructed to do. Waaaaahhhhh….help….save me…..

    • Leen says:

      Give thme the goods so that they can work their way up that “food chain”

      Want to hear McCaskill use that tone with Rumsfeld, Addington etc. Wonder if she would have this “chutzpah” then.

      Easy to beat on those at the “bottom of the food chain”

  4. skdadl says:

    Dalton is frozen; she really is. When she’s asked a question about her personal reactions at the time, she is incapable of responding.

  5. LS says:

    I get it…Levin is remembering history….dogs were brought in for intimidation….of people of a certain religious group.

    Frikkin’ Nazis.

    Good one!!!

  6. Loo Hoo. says:

    Dalton: Hayes was aware of concerns that the services had. Then she does a dance. My staff briefed his staff.

    • LS says:

      She is frikkin’ scared sh*tless….and pathetic. She is scared. She knows the implications of the whole shebang.

  7. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Beaver – Can’t say “he” was afraid of the dog. We’re not talking about a little border collie here. We’re talking pinschers, Alsatians, trained to secure a facility from unwanted, violent intruders. It’s not likely one would have played fetch with these guard animals. Therefore, it’s axiomatic that their presence induced stress in detainees. If witnesses are dancing around such obvious points, what more damning issues are they avoiding.

  8. LS says:

    Isn’t it “interesting” that two pathetic women…no…three including Karpinski, are taking the heat for Bushco’s frikkin’ evil actions….??? They were used.

  9. Loo Hoo. says:

    Beaver doesn’t think she told interrogators to tone it down when the red cross came to town.

    You can’t interrupt an interrogation…how freaking long did these interrogations go on? Weeks? That’s cruel in and of itself.

  10. Mary says:

    Has anyone asked her, directly about:

    a) her comments about “boys in the room” getting sexually excited in discussions of the torture techniques, or

    b) whether or not she can describe the Nuremberg Defense and differentiate it from her theory that violations and depravity could be “legal” as long as they were “ordered”

  11. LS says:

    Go Claire….on videotaping…

    Beaver…even when you have a legal custodial interrogation..not necessary, because we had closed-circuit TV’s where we could watch 24/7…”unless we had intelligence purposes”…

    Objection…Defense counsel for Beaver…on line of questioning, because of what someone else said and attributed to Beaver…objection noted by Levin.

  12. earlofhuntingdon says:

    The entire experience at Gitmo is the “interrogation”. It is not a few hours at a time with Sgt. Friday, a chair and bright lamp in the face. It is 24/7. They are observed, taped, monitored, recorded, stressed to the maxed, frequently in intense sensory deprivation, a circumstance known to negatively affect cognitive and behavioral function.

    Why is Beaver’s defense counsel interrupting the hearing. She’s a trained lawyer capable of responding to the questions asked.

    • eCAHNomics says:

      Yep, that too.

      Disadvantaged classes trying to advance is fields where they are underrepresented are working in mine fields. I was pretty naive on Wall St., but I guess why I survived for so long is that I had a job that didn’t get in anyone’s way (well, I did, but it wasn’t an existential threat to their careers) and wasn’t in a position that anyone could use to scapegoat.

  13. LS says:

    Shizzola….Beaver is almost in tears…if I had only known….go Claire…

    Claire: And that is why I look to Mr. Mora as a hero.

  14. Mary says:

    I’m going to pull something up from below, with a couple of things IMO they should do if they are serious, but before that, here’s an ever bigger set of questions that needs to be addressed.

    Lead in:

    You say that GCs did not apply, but if anyone at GITMO or any other detention facility was not actually an illegal enemy combatants, but was instead someone picked up based on feuding tribes turning them over, or someone who wanted the money rewards selling them to the US, or a mistaken name, or someone thinking a child buying tomotoes is a terrorist —- well, if they were not illegal enemy combatants, even under the most extreme of your theories and even giving you the benefit of not having Hamdan decided, those people were absolutely protected by the GCs.

    1. What did you do to make sure that you were not torturing and abusing people who were covered by the GCs?

    2. What do the GCs say about transporing a protected person out of country even without abusive questioning.

    3. What did you do in your abusive torture questioning to insure that when someone “was not cooperating” it was not because they were innocent, but instead because they were a terrorist?

    4. What did you do when you had someone like Kurnaz, whose whole file indicated that he a protected person under the GCs, to prevent him from being subjected to abuse and to insure application of the GCs to him?

    ************************
    bringing up from below

    Is anyone going to ask:

    “What was staged for the lawyers who visited Sept 25 (after the reverse SERE training trips for the interrogators) and which lawyers observed what.”

    They need to call all the people who went on that trip as witnesses – probably in closed sessions to keep them from collaborating – as FACT WITNESSES to what they saw. Anything they saw that violated the UCMJ or Common Article III, Hamdan has made clear were illegal acts and any lawyer who was a fact witness to illegal acts can’t stand behind any claims of privilege on that front. What they can do, is if they were a participant in the conspiracy to violate laws that were evidenced by those acts, is to take the fifth. Which won’t get you information, but will establish a clear record for Boalt, Harvard, Pepsico and Chevron that their professors or general counsels are men who, in an investigation of participation in massive covert torture programs, have taken the 5th.

    Yoo’s Dean and Goldsmith’s publishers can then deal with that one.

    Almost makes you wonder if Goldsmith’s designated charity for his book proceeds got any input on whether or not victims of the torture programs Goldsmith helped cover up,and the victims of the Article 49 violations he helped solicit, might have a claim on those monies under any of the laws preventing perpetrators from reaping the financial benefits of telling the stories of their predatory acts.

    • brendanx says:

      …those people were absolutely protected by the GCs.
      1. What did you do to make sure that you were not torturing and abusing people who were covered by the GCs?

      Well done putting it that way.

  15. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Beaver complaining no one came to her to saying violations occurred. She is aware of how tightly the people involved stayed within their chain of command, how ostracizing and career-ending a complaint to Beaver the lawyer would have been. And Leave it to Beaver was not among those recruited to staff Gitmo. I suspect there were a lot more Eddie Haskell’s.

  16. eCAHNomics says:

    Beaver is fatally naive, if you take her at her word. She organized meetings to which all & sundry are invited to brainstorm about interrogation. That is hopelessly irresponsible, and leaves her open to all the things that have subsequently happened to her.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Beaver appears to be the classic, mildly hapless, inconsistently naive, intense, effective and narrowly focused bureaucrat. The kind that can write a legal opinion that assumes away all the relevant, damning facts because that’s the information the client gave her. Someone wholly unlikely to observe the obvious or incorporate the well-known if it’s not in her orders.

  17. Mary says:

    35 – exactly. Plus it goes a bit to the state of mind of everyone involved, doesn’t it? Good intelligence, or salacious desires for power and to take vengence on someone who is helpless to respond?

  18. Leen says:

    Sure would like to witness Levin and McCaskill dig in this hard with the Telecom companies. Why here and not there?

  19. LS says:

    Beaver just sounded “exactly” like “not-Goodling”…the other blonde…I..I..don’t recall….honestly, you could overdub it…it was the exact “timbre” of not-Goodling’s voice when Leahey challenged her about the oath thingy…

    I think she’s getting it that if she opens up and coughs up the shizzola…the committee will move on up the chain…

    Claire broke her a bit.

  20. Mary says:

    With all the hindsight crap, someone needs to get Graham’s butt in the witness slot and find out from him what he knew when and what whistleblowers were coming to him and saying what.

    When every sitting JAG issues a memo that says “this is wrong” and Haynes goes forward anyway for YEARS AND YEARS,it is not – Lieberman’s posturing to the contrary – a matter of 20/20 hindsight as to whether or not things were wrong.

    Someone needs to tie that up for Lieberman real fast while MOra is around.

    Directed to Mora:

    1. Is it only now, upon hindsight, that you recognize a problem or did you raise it contemporaneously with discovering what was being done?

    2. Did people come forward from GITMO (like Brant) contemporaneously and challenge what was being done, or did that only happen with hindsight?

    3. Where the JAG memos objecting done now, with 20/20 hindsight, and just backdated, or were they offered up contemporaneously?

    They really need to start kicking Lieberman’s butt on this kind of crap.

  21. Bluetoe2 says:

    OT but relavent. This is priceless! Daily Kos is reporting that the HJC is close to a compromise on Rove’s testimony. It’s a sell out by the Dems that would allow Rove to testify behind closed doors with no transcript and NO oath. This is disgusting!!!

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/…..825/537178

      • Bluetoe2 says:

        Anyone that’s been paying attention shouldn’t be surprised. In the early 20th Century there were those that thought that the Russian system could be reformed and transformed into a modern egalitarian state. The reality, however, was that the system was so corrupt and compromised that armed resistance was the only viable option to right the wrongs of a corrupt and oppressive government. Has the U.S. reached that point in time?

      • Petrocelli says:

        Conyers is a sly Fox (a compliment) … he will press Rove on why he’d be willing to testify but without a transcript or oath … paint Rove into a corner of admitting guilt before it can be proven …

        • Leen says:

          Out Fox Rove…hah

          So far Rove has been successful at avoiding any consequences for his criminal actions. This pig is still filling our air waves with his poison.

  22. earlofhuntingdon says:

    OT, WaPoo says Shrub promises to speed flood aid to Midwest. Yup. He’s got lots of stuff left over from Katrina that he never delivered to Louisiana.

      • skdadl says:

        Y’know how the senators ask their questions and then get up and leave until the next round? That’s because they’re going out to eat or do the laundry. They keep the whole thing going all day long, though, as a secret plot against the DFHs. EW and her troops are the only ones who don’t get a break. They’re trying to starve us out.

  23. RevDeb says:

    brief recess of a vote. Next panel at 3 ET.

    Bluetoe2, that’s our KagroX who is on this stuff like superglue. Are we surprised that the dems are giving away the store? I wish I could say yes, but sadly . . .

  24. Mary says:

    “And Beaver started in the same role Lynndie was in.”

    That’s the only place where I will disagree with you EW.

    Lyndie was a rank and file soldier, uneducated and without an independent professional status and obligations under that status.

    Beaver was a lawyer, had a legal education and had a set of responsiblities. I can tell you flat out that all kinds of sweet young 20somethings in the real world of law get asked and pressured, over and over, right out of the door, to do the wrong thing. Whether it’s sleeping with a client to get ahead, “overlooking” documents, misrepresenting to the court, etc. etc. etc. etc. – no one gets a bye on that kind of thing. And you either say nay or go along. And it’s never easy to be the young woman at the table with the dismissive boys, but if you can’t handle it, you get out. You don’t hide behind “poor little me” as an excuse. IMO FWIW.

    • emptywheel says:

      No. Beaver started out as an MP, not a lawyer. She started in the same role as Lynndie did, with the caveat that she was not a reservist, IIRC.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Beaver also previously served in the military police before becoming a lawyer. She knew the drill.

        • skdadl says:

          There’s that quote Mary was asking about:

          The brainstorming meetings inspired animated discussion. “Who has the glassy eyes?,” Beaver asked herself as she surveyed the men around the room, 30 or more of them. She was invariably the only woman present—as she saw it, keeping control of the boys. The younger men would get particularly agitated, excited even. “You could almost see their dicks getting hard as they got new ideas,” Beaver recalled, a wan smile flickering on her face. “And I said to myself, You know what? I don’t have a dick to get hard—I can stay detached.”

          Why didn’t someone read that back at her? Too much language?

          • RevDeb says:

            Hearing the replay of Levin reading the opening remarks about Beaver gives a whole different picture of her. None of it good.

              • RevDeb says:

                I’m sure the text of his opening will be posted somewhere but several quotes about or attributed to Beaver make her sound like one of the cold blooded boys who knew full well what was going on. I could be mistaken, it went by quickly, but with a face in mind and a few minutes of watching her, the words from Levin were not complimentary.

            • skdadl says:

              She said it to Philippe Sands (see his Vanity Fair article, brendanx’s link above) — she didn’t say it in this hearing. Nor did anyone else.

          • earlofhuntingdon says:

            The ones who get excited and emotional aren’t the ones to worry about, unless they’re Doug Feiths giving orders. The dangerous ones are those with the glassy, fish-eyes, the endurance athlete martial artists who never stop in pursuit of their objective. The problem with this administration is that its leadership “got off” pretending to be them, and misused them by pursuing the wrong objectives.

  25. Mary says:

    69 -as opposed to wait a few months and have an AG who’ll take him to court for failure to comply.

  26. WilliamOckham says:

    Mary,

    You asked earlier about Chertoff being on the torture tour. In the docs released today (p.12 of 63), there is an extract from the trip report from the DoD GC visit to GTMO. Its says:

    On 25 Sep 02, mr. haynes, DOD GC, Mr. Addington, Counsel to the VP; Mr. Rizzo, CIA Acting GC; the Honorable Mr. Chertof, DOJ, Criminal Division; and others (complete list of visitors at Tab B) visited GTMO.

  27. Mary says:

    10 – EOH, I’m not used to seeing Gsheps called Alsatians. Do you have a British background?

    One of the “heroes” of the radical islamist movement, Qutb, was reportedly tortured in Egyptian prisons by CIA trained torturers who, among other things, used dogs on the stripped prisoners. He also reportedly suffered a heart attack during that episode. So no, it’s not about Scooby Doo woofing for a Scooby treat.

    Anyone who can should watch this documentary: The Power of Nightmares

    which is available online. If for nothing else, there is some very brief footage (I wish I knew how to grab sections and could get some approvals to put that section on youtube) of the Egyptian use of dogs on prisoners back during that time.

  28. Mary says:

    83 – thank you WO. I think it is interesting that in the MSNBC list and the Goldsmith book list he seems to have been “left off”

  29. Mary says:

    Also interesting that they managed to keep, at the head of crim div, someone who had been on the torture trip the whole time. Chertoff to Wray to Fisher. Well, interesting is one word.

  30. Mary says:

    So Beaver says it was FBI that kept ICRC away from Qhatani, not DOD?

    Qahatni, which the law enforcement folks had custody of him, FBI and CITF did not allow ICRC to speak to him. ICRC was allowed to see him in brig.

    So who at FBI authorized keeping him away from ICRC?

  31. FormerFed says:

    I hate to sound sexist, but the women are coming across as wuss (the Admiral) or jerks (the LTC) although the DoD GC guy and the male LTC didn’t look very good either. Thank God for people like Mora.

  32. LS says:

    So…will Haynes claim the 5th…or weave a web…this will be interesting….just about to start again.

  33. Mary says:

    It would be nice to see them go back to the taping, notes, etc. more. If the real purpose of the abuse/torture was to get intelligence, the argument that there were closed circuit tvs doesn’t cut it. How many times have videos of statements by bin laden and zawahiri been reviewed for clues and interpretations? You don’t run it through once and take notes and never watch it again, especially when you may not have first rate translators (and we know that DOJ found Edmonds was absolutely correct on her assertions of sending to GITMO a translator who failed proficiency in both English and the language he was translating). Intelligence gathering also invovles looking for slight tells, especially if you can view a series of tapes – like a poker player does.

    There’s no intelligence related reason for not having videos and not keeping the videos. So that’s when you ask, “if you thought your interrogations involved criminal activity, would you tape them – just as a hypothetical” and if tapes of interrogations that, after Hamdan, clearly demonstrated illegal techniques existed and someone destroyed them, would that be obstruction?

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Given that they embarked on a whole new world, the GWOT, post-9/11, and went considerably out on a legal limb to use torture – assuming it worked and only it could provide essential, immediate, actionable intelligence – recording torture techniques was essential. What worked on what kinds of personalities, how and how fast?

      Immediately incorporating lessons learned in all other interrogations would have been essential. The whole chain of command needed to know such things, including top policy makers in the White House, since they were authorizing use of specific techniques on named individuals.

      Reasons for not recording torture interrogations? The main actors, those in the field particularly, knew it was illegal and that eventually the recordings would leak. They knew it didn’t provide credible actionable intelligence, any more than did Curveball, it just broke the prisoner. Obtaining such intelligence wasn’t the main reason the administration wanted to hold itself out to the bad guys as having no limits in its willingness to pursue and punish its enemies.

      Have Testosterone, Will Travel. Lord of the Flies made national policy, a moral holocaust in the White House.

  34. Mary says:

    The language is why I offered up the tamer, “sexually excited” reference. In what evidentiary world, though, does no one follow up on that statement at all?

  35. RevDeb says:

    I think I need a barf bag. Haynes is not going to be helpful.

    It begins.

    “2002 was 6 years ago, my memory is not good.”

    9/11, 9/11, 9/11!

  36. Leen says:

    Does McCaskill always play hardball or is she selective with her hardball line of questioning? Dies she only spit nails when folks are at the “bottom of the food chain” or does she apply what we witnessed today to everyone who comes in front of her for questioning?

    If she only plays hardball with folks at the bottom of thhe food chain that says a great deal about McCaskill. Just asking

  37. LS says:

    Haynes…I remember, not very well, that there was a government wide concern about another attack as the anniversary of 9/11 approached, and those captured had not been giving as much information as needed….I was concerned…I remember…inquiring “generally” where the expertise might of been..I don’t remember specifically asking Shiffern …I only remember generally…and from refreshment by looking at documents…I don’t remember requesting it, and if I was interested, I would have requested it from him…

    I don’t recall, I don’t recall, stop asking me…I’m freaking out…(I made that part up).

  38. Mary says:

    How could Haynes, with such an alzheimery memory (of things he was being questioned on by others at the Pentagon much more recently than now) have gotten such a glowing endorsement for a lifetime federal judicial appointment from Philbin, Goldsmith, Thompson and Comey?

    Hmmmm.

    Without relying on his memory, they could ask him the questions I put up at 46 about protected persons.

  39. LS says:

    Six years ago and four score centuries…it was a long time ago…I don’t remember nothin’. Nothin’.. I have amnesia….get me outta here….

  40. LS says:

    They should ask him…do you remember your graduation from college? Do you remember your wedding day? Do you remember the time you first….nevermind….How long ago were those events? How did you get such a position, when you think that 6 years is a long frikkin’ time….

    Why don’t you remember significant events like this???

  41. Mary says:

    How did they differentiate between

    “not having the information unless they made up stuff or agreed to go along with whatever interrogators wanted them to say”

    v.

    “not giving as much information as needed.

    What with Arar admitting to being a terrorist, al-Libi admitting to al-Qaeda training camps in Iraq, etc. – was the pressure to gin up more fake intel to work around for the Iraq war – or to actually get intel?

    And if the worry was the first 9/11 anniversary, why were the torture field trip and the torture training sessions scheduled for after that date?

  42. jayt says:

    Haynes’ defense – I may have done some truly horrible, reprehensible, and illegal things, but hey – that was a long time ago, and I really don’t remember – I was a busy man. A combination of “CRS” and The Scooter Defense…

  43. phred says:

    Why would Haynes remember anything about his professional decisions regarding torture? That’s not memorable, kinda like did he have ham or turkey on his sandwich at lunch… Who remembers such things??? /snark

    I didn’t think it was possible, but they have finally found someone even less believable than Gonzo.

  44. john in sacramento says:

    Always fashionably late …

    Beaver, whomever he is, is lying or an idiot

    Graham: I understand from Schmitt-Furlow report that a dog was used in interrogation.

    Don’t know what the Schmitt-Furlow report is, but Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedures says this in part

    The manual also includes instructions on how to use military dogs to intimidate prisoners.

    “MWD (Military Working Dogs) will walk ‘Main Street’ in Camp Delta during shifts to demonstrate physical presence to detainees,” reads a directive in the “Psychological Deterrence” section. “MWD will not be walked through the blocks unless directed by the (Joint Detention Operations Group).”

    The document was signed by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller. According to media reports, Miller introduced harsh interrogation methods to Guantánamo, such as shackling detainees into stress positions and using guard dogs to exploit what the former head commander in Iraq Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez referred to as “Arab fear of dogs.

    Wikileaks leaked report

    Beaver: I was not aware of it.

    Liar or idiot?

    Graham when you said this didn’t happen at Gitmo, you’re not right.

    Beaver: What was approved did not happen.

    Liar

    Graham Who did this?

    Beaver: I don’t know.

    Idiot

    Graham it was part of interrogation plan. Also strip-searched in front of female personnel. Based on this report we know in at least one interrogation dogs were used a person was stripped.

    Beaver I haven’t read it, but I take your word for it.

    Liar

Comments are closed.