Smoking gun on extraordinary rendition

Whenever the subject of torture comes up, the White House responds reflexively with a simple, categorical statement: “We don’t torture.” Occasionally, the president and his team will go even further in their denials, adding statements such as, “We do not render to countries that torture. That has been our policy, and that policy will remain the same.”

That second part, of course, refers to a tactic called “extraordinary rendition,” in which the U.S. turns over suspects to other countries to be tortured. It’s like the outsourcing of war crimes.

We’ve known about rendition for several years, but ABC News has uncovered what it calls the “smoking gun” on the administration’s program. The reports details CIA cables that document the rendering of terrorist suspect Ibn al Sheikh al Libi to Egypt to be tortured.

[CIA’s “debriefers” talked to al Libi after his return from Cairo typed out] a series of operational cables to be sent Feb. 4 and Feb. 5 to the CIA Headquarters in Langley, Va. In the view of some insiders, these cables provide the “smoking gun” on the whole rendition program — a convincing account of how the rendition program was, they say, illegally sending prisoners into the hands of torturers. […]

A Feb. 5 cable records that al Libi was told by a “foreign government service” (Egypt) that: “the next topic was al-Qa’ida’s connections with Iraq…This was a subject about which he said he knew nothing and had difficulty even coming up with a story.”

Al Libi indicated that his interrogators did not like his responses and then “placed him in a small box approximately 50cm X 50cm [20 inches x 20 inches].” He claimed he was held in the box for approximately 17 hours. When he was let out of the box, al Libi claims that he was given a last opportunity to “tell the truth.” When al Libi did not satisfy the interrogator, al Libi claimed that “he was knocked over with an arm thrust across his chest and he fell on his back.” Al Libi told CIA debriefers that he then “was punched for 15 minutes.”

Eventually, Al Libi said what his interrogators wanted to hear, even though it was false. And wouldn’t you know it, the torture-induced lies ended up in Colin Powell’s presentation to the U.N.

Under torture after his rendition to Egypt, al Libi had provided a confession of how Saddam Hussein had been training al Qaeda in chemical weapons. This evidence was used by Colin Powell at the United Nations a year earlier (February 2003) to justify the war in Iraq. (“I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these [chemical and biological] weapons to al Qaeda,” Powell said. “Fortunately, this operative is now detained, and he has told his story.”)

Except, of course, his story was bogus, and the result of torture and rendition.

Here was a cable then that informed Washington that one of the key pieces of evidence for the Iraq war — the al Qaeda/Iraq link — was not only false but extracted by effectively burying a prisoner alive.

Although there have been claims about torture inflicted on those rendered by the CIA to countries like Egypt, Syria, Morocco and Uzbekistan, this is the first clear example of such torture detailed in an official government document.

Bring on the special prosecutor.

I have a question that crossed my mind this weekend; maybe someone here has an answer.

Lets assume the poltical process in the US is broken and no one will ever have the courage to hold BushCo accountable. Lets take that even further by assuming there are a lot of pardons issued in the early days of January 2009.

The first time Dubya or Dick step foot on foreign soil – to give one of those big money speeches Dubya is sure he’ll get invited to deliver, for example – is there any reason French or Russian or Lebanese police couldn’t take them into custody and render them to unto the Hague for trials on war crimes or other violations of international law?

This seems too easy – what am I missing?

  • I caught a little bit of 60 Minutes’ report on Curveball last Sunday.

    There you had a pathological liar. Here you have a man forced to lie.

    How many people have died for this bullshit?

    Bring on the war crimes tribunal

  • Whenever the subject of torture comes up, the White House responds reflexively with a simple, categorical statement: “We don’t torture.”

    But… this one goes up to 11.

  • In the constant search for lies to subsantiate our need attack countries that don’t need attacking, you’d think they’d prefer to get the lies they want to hear from some idiot like “Curveball” who will readily fabricate stories to get what he wants rather than beating a fabrication out of someone. People must be more creative in their lies when they’re not in excruciating pain. Hell, the 101st Fighting Keyboarders would probably fabricate some great fibs for free. Why go through all the trouble of torture?

  • And yet Kucinich was embarrassed by his own party just yesterday for trying to impeach Cheney.

    Meanwhile, misguided apologists absolve the Democratic leadership of their failure and argue against impeachment with incoherent metaphors.

    I argued several months ago that impeachment was premature at that point. I no longer think this is the case.

  • Zeitgeist, I think that you’re onto something. I commented about this yesterday, but very late in the thread where it probably wasn’t seen much:

    In October 1998 an arrest warrant was issued in Spain for former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, and Pinochet was arrested in London later that year. Spanish judge Baltasar Garzón’s case was largely founded on the principle of “universal jurisdiction” – that certain crimes are so egregious that they constitute crimes against humanity and can therefore be prosecuted in any court in the world.

    From Wikipedia: “Despite his release on grounds of ill-health, the unprecedented detention of Pinochet in a foreign country for crimes against humanity committed in his own country, without a warrant or request for extradition from his own country, marks a watershed in international law. Some scholars consider it one of the most important events in judicial history since the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals.”

    If Bush plans to do any foreign travel after his term ends, he had better choose his venues carefully. Perhaps this explains the 100,000 acre ranch Bush has purchased in Paraguay. Meanwhile, Cheney can always hole up in Dubai, where Halliburton has established its corporate headquarters. Extradition from either of those places would be very, very difficult.

  • It makes us proud to write about where our President and Vice President can and cannot go after their terms ends. They first have to check for extradition treaties. That must complicate their vacation travel plans…What a sad country we have become.

  • Steny Hoyer will just claim that a special prosecutor will only distract from the business of legislating. I imagine Colin Powell will be sick to his stomach when he reads this…if he ever finds out about it.

    Yesterday it was too late by the time I read one of your posts but feel strongly I needed to comment back to one of the comments I read here so it will be seen.

    11/06/07…***Swan you are full of it just like Hoyer*** You and those like you are the spoilers. “Let’s not do what’s right or just because it just distracts from reality”. Never believing in creating another reality. There is no down side to impeachment. Hell even Nixon was forced by congress to give them a ’special” prosecutor just to get his AG approved. That prosecutor ended up prosecuting Nixon.
    “Evidence”?…we have video tapes and testimony out the yin-yang and that is just what we know so far. With a special prosecutor the amount of evidence he could gather would be overwhelming (can’t hide behind executive privilege with impeachment. You
    know all those emails and documents the WH refuses to turn over)
    What pray tell is the downside to making the republicans discuss WMD, torture, wire tapping, executive privilege, secret energy policies…even if the dems planned not to vote to impeach they could have had a field day bashing Cheney and this administration and only shortly before an election.
    Hoyer was so stupid here…the republicans wanted to make it look like they were willing to debate Cheney’s positions (“He’s done nothing wrong or improper”) when in fact they weren’t. But that is how they will play it now…(“It was the democrats who didn’t want to discuss it…they were afraid…proving that even they know Bush/Cheney are men of honor and have done nothing wrong”) Could Hoyer have been more easily manipulated…the dem leadership were changing positions back and forth today, that’s why the 15min. vote went on for over 55min.
    Swan you are like the person who when facing a person who has all the answers to all the problems of the world standing before him would argue ..”maybe it’s not a good idea to have all the answers to all the problems…maybe we’re not supposed to.”
    Kucinich has been right on every issue and always way ahead of the other candidates.
    He is more like Gore than Nader. We let Gore get by us and now we are making the same mistake with Kucinich. All you are doing is looking for how wrong he is instead of paying attention to how right he is. He is a democratic candidate for president and before the primaries have even begun and without paying the slightest attention to his policies you are saying he should throw his support behind one of the “stronger” candidates.
    Let me remind you that Kucinich is stronger than all the other candidates…starting a coalition to prevent invading Iraq instead of signing the AUMF, voted against the MCA, the Patriot act, the FISA protect America act, re-authorizing the Patriot act, Only candidate saying he would end NAFTA and withdraw us from the WTA, introduced not for profit single payer national Health care for all Americans, withdraw our troops from Iraq with none left behind and no permanent military bases within 3mos, create a department of Peace, was the first one to call out Cheney and Bush for their Iran rhetoric and threats. and is the only candidate who said on his first day of office WOULD HAVE BUSH AND CHENEY ARRESTED. He is the strong candidate and the one who has been there when “the chips are down”, unlike Hoyer, Fienstein, Rockefeller, Clinton, and many more I could name.
    Look at the country…how divisive and full of fear…how politicized…debating torture and wiretapping and preemptive war…and finally someone has the guts to stand up and attempt to make this regime accountable…and you call them a spoiler…Hoyer says we are just too busy with other things to bother with accountability…Pelosi says we are too busy “policy making”…yet the regime blocks them at every turn. It is no longer the issues that must be attacked…but the regime…the cou appointed illegally in 2000.
    Here are a few paragraphs from a post at Glenn Greenwald’s site over at Salon from guest blogger Chris Floyd, Oct. 26 showing why impeachment is not a distraction (suggest you go to the archives on that site and read the whole article):
    “…For above all, impeachment should be moved to the top of the congressional agenda. It should be the overriding, all-consuming priority of the people’s representatives. For this is the inescapable, stone-cold truth: nothing, absolutely nothing but impeachment, will stop the Bush-Cheney regime from carrying out its criminal agenda…
    (snip)
    Congress passes laws forbidding torture; Bush and Cheney ignore them. Congress issues subpoenas and demands documents for its corruption probes; Bush and Cheney ignore them. Bush’s “signing statements” explicitly state that he will follow only those parts of the law that suit him. Congress could vote tomorrow that Iran cannot be attacked without a formal declaration of war, and Bush would attack whenever he chooses anyway, calling it an extension of the congressionally authorized action in Iraq, a “defensive” action to protect the troops. Congress can pass any law it wants, but if you have an executive branch that considers itself above the law – as this one demonstrably does – then it doesn’t matter. As long as Bush and Cheney remain in power, their criminal enterprise will go on.
    Thus impeachment is not a “distraction” from efforts to end the war in Iraq, or stop a new war with Iran, or quell the vast and sickening corruption of the regime. It is their prerequisite. And even if impeachment is “politically impossible in the present circumstances,” as Bush enablers like the pusillanimous Nancy Pelosi likes to tell us, it should be shoved to the forefront of national debate nonetheless. Let us have a “constitutional crisis;” let us bring our festering sickness to a boil. Let’s lay it all out, and let people declare once and for all where they stand. Are you for the republic, or do you hold with tyranny, torture and mass murder? Let’s draw the line at last, and be done with all pretense.
    But we know that what should be done will not be done. We see that the Democrats have taken impeachment “off the table.” We see that far from stopping or curtailing the war in Iraq, Pelosi and the Democratic leadership punish those among their number who dare speak the truth: that Bush has indeed sent American soldiers to have their heads blown off for his amusement, for his aggrandizement, for his radical agenda of loot and dominion. We see that far from stopping the rush toward a new war with Iran they are instead abetting it, declaring their overwhelming assent to the deceitful casus belli Bush has offered. We see, with despair, that the national Democrats share the regime’s radical agenda of endless militarism and hegemonic sway, differing only on a few points of style and decorum, and a desire to see more “competence” in Iraq and “future wars.” …”
    This is the leadership that you can count on when the chips are down? Kucinich should be applauded for his courage and strength…to go against the mis guided leadership of his own party who should have had his back but are too spineless to step out of line against this regime. Read the article Swan…I dare ya’.

    I’m still upset over yesterday’s events in the House. It could have been a day of heroism but quickly turned to a day of infamy.

  • similar to doubful (#5), i have long argued here that impeaching some lesser official like Gonzales made sense, but that I just wasn’t convinved that impeaching Bush or Cheney or both was practical, desirable or likely to be supportable by the public. now i find that, other than concerns about how little time Bush has left before the natural expiration of his term, it is almost impossible to argue against impeachment. if Clinton could be impeached for what he did, and while having a 50%+ approval rating from the public, it seems that for impeachment to have any meaning at all (not to mention for impeachment to be re-established for its proper purposes), Bush has to be impeached. like Nixon, he has used his office to undermine the democratic process. even beyond the level Nixon did, he and those working at his pleasure have repeatedly and unambiguously lied to Congress and the public about it. BushCo has violated both laws (by changing definitions solely by monarchical fiat) and ingrained values of this country. and his strong disapproval is now at 50% – if there was ever a case for a recall, not that i would want us to set a precedent for that path, but that has to be it.

    it really is hard to see how he has any legitimacy – politically, legally or morally. and the POTUS is too important a position to have a complete vacuum of legitimacy there.

  • “Except, of course, his story was bogus, and the result of torture and rendition.”

    who would have ever thought?

  • The first time Dubya or Dick step foot on foreign soil … is there any reason French or Russian or Lebanese police couldn’t take them into custody and render them to unto the Hague for trials on war crimes or other violations of international law?

    W won’t be leaving the country. He hates foreign travel, hates visiting other countries, and the only reason he leaves the US is because he has to. He’ll be retiring to his ranch in Crawford and, gods-willing, we’ll never hear from him again. Unless someone in the US reaches down, finds a pair, and brings him up on charges here in the US (doubtful, but one can dream).

    Cheney, OTOH, might get shanghaied somewhere. But Cheney isn’t likely to be a visitor to Europe anytime soon after leaving office, which is where this would be most likely to happen. If he sticks to visiting his favorite corporate paradise (Dubai) he’ll have nothing to fear.

  • Bring on the special prosecutor.

    Yeah right, Steve.

    Bring on a real opposition party, the Democraps haven’t done anything to make me think we’ll ever see a special proisecutor.

  • Too bad the Dems weren’t bright enough to squeeze Mukasey for a Special Prosecutor when they had the chance, because they sure as hell won’t get one after he’s in.

    Screwed, screwed, screwed………

  • oh yeah, South America, because now that he’s fulfilled his family obligations to the old man, he can get back to satisfying his white line fever. If you gotta live someplace, might as well be where the coca grows, right?

  • I fully expect these kinds of reactions from the right:

    “Gosh, who among us wouldn’t like to have a few minutes to ourselves in a box? What with all the technology and cell phones and iPods, just getting some quiet time is so difficult! He ought to be thanking us!”

    Or Limbaugh: “You know, this is typical of the liberals. Most of these liberals go to these liberal colleges where they try to see how many people they can cram into a phone booth or a Volkswagen. This is just the same thing, folks.”

  • Comments are closed.