The question behind the ‘we do not torture’ quote

November 8, 2005

By now, nearly everyone has seen the stunning remark Bush made in Panama City yesterday about torture. The context in which the comment was made, however, hasn’t generated enough attention.

“We are finding terrorists and bringing them to justice. We are gathering information about where the terrorists may be hiding. We are trying to disrupt their plots and plans. Anything we do to that effort, to that end, in this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law. We do not torture.”

For Bush to claim, unequivocally, that the United States does not engage in torture was … what’s the word … odd. White House staffers have gone to some lengths to brag about Bush’s distaste for reading newspapers, but this raises anew questions about whether the president is even aware of current events at a basic level. Has Bush not heard of Abu Ghraib? Capt. Ian Fishback? Gen. George Fay? Fareed Zakaria tries to help Bush catch up.

[T]he incidents clearly go well beyond Abu Ghraib. During the past few months, declassified documents and testimony from Army officers make abundantly clear that torture and abuse of prisoners is something that has become quite widespread since 9/11. The most recent evidence comes from autopsies of 44 prisoners who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan in U.S. custody. Most died under circumstances that suggest torture. The reports use words like “strangulation,” “asphyxiation” and “blunt force injuries.” Even the “natural” deaths were caused by “Arteriosclerotic Cardiovascular disease” — in other words, sudden heart attacks.

But as shameful as the “we do not torture” comment was given what we know to the contrary, it’s worth noting the actual question to which Bush was responding. Or in this case, avoiding.

Q: Mr. President, there has been a bit of an international outcry over reports of secret U.S. prisons in Europe for terrorism suspects. Will you let the Red Cross have access to them? And do you agree with Vice President Cheney that the CIA should be exempt from legislation to ban torture?

They were fairly simple, yes-or-no questions. Bush refused to address the substance of the questions, preferring to simply repeat empty rhetoric (“The executive branch has the obligation to protect the American people”) and make nonsensical observations (“We do not torture”).

Will Bush let the Red Cross have access to detainees? Does Bush agree with Cheney about a CIA exemption from torture laws? Seems like the kind of questions that should continue to be asked until the president is prepared to answer them.

Bush’s (and Rummy’s earlier) denials of torture, in the face of the Attorney General’s justification of it and President Cheney’s insistence on retaining it for the CIA (agents of which could, of course, be loaned out for military duty, or whose torture activities could easily be privatized), are truly amazing for their lying brazenness.

  • Everyone should read and analyze this quote:

    “Anything we do to that effort, to that end, in this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law. We do not torture.”

    In other words, he’s saying torture is illegal. But anything we do in the effort against terrorism is by definition legal. Therefore whatever we do is not torture because we declare it to be legal.

    That’s the evil, twisted logic that flows through the mind of our president. It is the most horrible crime against civilization since World War II, and anyone who thinks it is the lowest form of scum.

  • Here’s the talking point: Bush is less honest than Clinton. Clinton “never had sexual relations with that woman” the same way Bush “does not torture”.

    Both are lies, but one is a little more important than the other.

    Hey media people: Better ask him what his definition of the word “torture” means, if its Gonzales’ version or the Red Cross’ version.

  • curm

    precisely. his quote has the same rhetorical underpinnings as his staffer’s infamous “we make our own reality” comment.

  • Got to read a post in the Washington Note today. Has a rather large clip from the Nelson Report. This quote is totally on point… talk about parsing words.

    “….And that, of course, goes to the crux of the matter. . .the President’s infamous “torture memo” which authorized CIA and military interrogators to torture someone up to but not past the point of “organ failure and death” in order to make them talk. A friend with an interesting intelligence analysis approach to all this suggests: “Bush sincerely, albeit conveniently, believes physical abuse without intent to to cause permanent injury or loss to vital organs is not torture, and believes the CIA black op is staying within boundaries most of the time.” (The best historical analogy: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”)” Maybe. . .but even if true, it’s hardly exculpation…..”

    http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001075.html

  • I’m waiting for the first reporter to pop the question about chemical weapons in Falluja.

    If we follow along with the dubious reasoning that we are in Iraq to depose an evil dictator that tortured his people and used chemical weapons against them then we have truly become like the enemy that we deposed.

  • Seems like the kind of questions that should continue to be asked until the president is prepared to answer them.

    Yup. And one of these days, they might prepare him to answer them.

  • I think Curmudgeon is reading the statement correctly. I think this is actually what Bush meant. I do not think it is merely an awkward formulation. Everything is legal in the war against terrorism.

  • “insistence on retaining it for the CIA (agents of which could, of course, be loaned out for military duty, or whose torture activities could easily be privatize”

    Actually, this raises a question I’ve not seen addressed.

    Back in the heady days of Afghanistan we heard about the expanding paramilitary faction of the CIA, largely ex-military types like the late Jonny Spann.

    What I’m wondering is, are the CIA interrogators at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere ‘regular CIA’ (whatever that means) or are they CIA paramilitaries?

    And if they *are* CIA paramilitaries, were they essentially transferred to the CIA from Rumsfeld’s operation at OSD?

    In other words, are the CIA’s torturers effectively working more for Rumsfeld and Cheney, rather than the CIA?

    It’s entirely possible that they are CIA agents who joined up before the Bush administration. Tenet started staffing up the paramilitary section during the Clinton administration. And we know that ‘normal’ CIA drew up plans for the extraordinary rendition scheme.

    But it would seem entirely in character for Cheney and Rumsfeld to want to get a bunch of ‘trusted people’ or even ‘true believers’ into the CIA’s operations, via the paramilitary operation.

  • If Vice President De Sade needs to torture somebody, why doesn’t he start with Chalabi?

  • What chemical weapons? The Italian movie shows smoke (WP) that is used en masse to give an incendiary effect. And fire bombing is permitted in war, although a bit more regulated than other bombing.

    Let’s get the terminology straight; firebombing civilians (Tokyo, anyone?) is bad enough — no need to resort to hyperbole.

  • Turning a blind eye to torture is not only repugnant, but also horribly corrosive to military discipline. When I was in the Army we had regular classes in Geneva Convention rules and military discipline because the thuggish instincts of peope, have to be kept in check. Inevitably some guy in the classroom would blurt out something to the effect of “Aw, thaasa buncha bullshit, oughtta just torture `em all.” I would do my part (I was a buck sergeant at that point) to point out that torture does no damn good because the guy will just confess to the Brinks robbery or to bombing Pearl Harbor, and that torture makes it very unlikely your enemy will surrender on the battlefield.
    A word on chemical weapons: Yes, white phosphorous is a “chemical” weapon (so is TNT if you think about it) but it’s not the same thing as poison gas. It’s been regularly used in open warfare even though it does have horrible effects on people. Bill Maulidn, in his book “Up Front,” describes using WP shells to “blast the pants off the Krauts” and in the Korean War one artillery battery held off a Chinese infantry attack for hours by firing 155-mm WP shells point-blank. Willie Peter is a distinction without a difference. The real story is just the whole horrible rotten stinking war.

  • Mr. President did what he think was in the best interest of American people. Yes! going in Iraq was a mistake and he should have rather a different approach of solving problem like showing more flexibility in talks with then Iraqi government.

    • Comments are closed.