White House uses circular reasoning to deny torture charges

October 4, 2007

The New York Times reported this morning that in two separate, secret legal opinions signed by the Attorney General, the Bush administration quietly contradicted its official line and endorsed “the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.” After insisting publicly that “torture is abhorrent,” Bush officials “provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics,” including simulated drownings and freezing temperatures.

Responding to the news, the White House went into full-denial mode.

“This country does not torture,” White House press secretary Dana Perino told reporters. “It is a policy of the United States that we do not torture and we do not.” […]

Perino confirmed existence of the Feb. 5, 2005, classified opinion but would not comment on whether it authorized specific practices, such as head-slapping and simulated drowning. She said the 2005 opinion did not reinterpret the law.

Instead, Perino said the 2004 anti-torture opinion was a “broad and general” interpretation of the law and “the February 2005 one was different in that it was focused on specifics.”

Perino insisted, repeatedly, that the U.S. government “doesn’t torture” and “follows the law.” Americans are supposed to believe this, of course, because Perino insisted that the U.S. government “doesn’t torture” and “follows the law.”

If this sounds like circular reasoning to you, we’re on the same page.

Paul Kiel published some of the headache-inducing transcript from this morning’s press gaggle at the White House.

QUESTION: You maintain that the administration still does not torture?

PERINO: Correct….

QUESTION: But is it not possible that some of these classified opinions may have changed the definition of “torture”?

PERINO: No. I don’t believe so. I have not seen them. But as everything was described to me, no, I don’t believe that’s possible….

QUESTION: But the idea that you can’t discuss it and that you blanketly say there’s no torture when, clearly, in the Department of Justice there has been a debate about if those techniques were too severe … and to simply say there’s no torture, but then to never provide any insight as to what the limitations are, with the exception of death or organ failure …

PERINO: I’m not disputing that there can be legal disagreements between reasonable people who may look at something one way and another person looks at it in another way. I’m not disputing that. What I am saying is that we do not torture, and I disagree with the notion that just because information is leaked or provided to The New York Times or any other news organization that this country should … that this government should then have to spell out any specifics. And I’m not confirming or denying anything that you just listed … all the ones that you just listed.

QUESTION: How can you say that … how can you say with assurance that we don’t torture if you don’t know what was in the …

PERINO: Because we follow the law.

It must be true; the White House press secretary says so.

Perino also described the NYT article: “The article is quite long. You’re asking me if everything in is accurate. No, I would not think that everything in it is accurate.” It’s an odd way to phrase the denial.

As for the secret legal opinions themselves, it’s a little unclear which members of Congress, if any, were privy to the information at the time, but some leading congressional Dems want them now.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and subcommittee chair Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) today demanded the Justice Department release secret legal opinions from 2005 and 2006 that The New York Times described today as “an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.” […]

“Both the alleged content of these opinions and the fact that they have been kept secret from Congress are extremely troubling, especially in light of the Department’s 2004 withdrawal of an earlier opinion similarly approving such methods,” Conyers and Nadler wrote. They also demand that Bradbury — who has never been confirmed by the Senate despite serving as OLC chief for years — testify about his justifications for such techniques as waterboarding.

Stay tuned.

Thursday’s devastating New York Times expose of the Bush administration’s secret endorsement of torture by the CIA only served to confirm the worst what most Americans already suspected. First, Alberto Gonzales lied to Congress regarding the administration’s policy on torture of detainees during his 2005 confirmation hearings. Second, President Bush’s December 2005 signing statement accompanying the Detainee Treatment Act was expressly designed to exempt the lawbreaking he had already approved.

For the details, see:
“Bush Signing Statement, Gonzales Perjury Concealed Torture Policy.”

  • “You’re asking me if everything in is accurate. No, I would not think that everything in it is accurate.”

    …I would not think that, (if I had read the article (which I didn’t) and if I wasn’t a robot (which I am).)

    Comedian Steven Wright said it best- ‘Sometimes when you can’t hear me, it’s because I’m speaking in parentheses.’

  • What more will this sick society need in order to realize these people MUST be impeached and prosecuted? If they are not stopped, they will be doing it to US citizens next. What is being done to our captured soldiers in Iraq now? Violation of the Geneva convention opens the doors for the rest of the world to torture our people.

    Time to throw these evil bastards into the garbage where they belong.
    Impeach Now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
    http://www.afterdowningstreet.org

  • It’s basic Tyranny 101. The Dicktator calls the shots and King George makes them law. So, by definition, the Loyal Bushie Cabal is “following the law,” just not the U.S. Code and the Constitution (which are primarily for cut-n-runners, dirty hippies & terrorist sympathizers).

    See? Much better. Here, have a little Koolaid, CB.

  • Though the sadness can’t be perceived by the delusional crowd of the WH, it is the condition one is led to when dealing with bozo’s who, seemingly, truly believe that just by having themselves proclaim something, it makes it true. -Kevo

  • When the author of the definition and the accused are one and the same, they will never be guilty.

  • Damn it, I want a lot more out of this than watching Perino crack like an egg. I want to see her sitting before a Hauge tribunal with all of the other criminals.

  • How do these criminals expect to keep the next administration from hunting them down and holding them to the fullest measure of accountbility for what they have done to the Republic?

    Should I just sharpen the bayonet—or sit it out in the damp air and let it get good and rusty first?

  • Do they ever ask her if their defintion of torture includes water boarding or head slapping? I suppose they would respond with “we don’t talk about specific techniques.” To which I would guess I would reply, “Technique?!!? Repeatedly slapping someone in the head is a ‘technique’? As if it’s in some manual somewhere?”

  • I would let Dana Perino torture me all she wants! I’ve been a bad, bad boy, Dana!

    But seriously, The UNITED STATES of AMERICA! does not torture human-beings, period.

  • If these people are not prosecuted for their crimes, then our republic is in deep jeopardy from which it may never recover. There is so much at stake here; please God don’t let this one get swept under the rug!

  • “White House” and “reasoning” in the same sentence creates an oxymoron. Emphasis on moron.

  • Kiel’s transcript of Perino’s bobbing and weaving, while eye-glazing, is worth reading for this little gem:

    PERINO: Just because it’s printed in The New York Times doesn’t mean that we should talk about it publicly.

    That’s where she refuses to divulge the specifics of the Feb. ’05 memo “narrowing” of the definitions which were too broadly described in the Dec. ’04 one (now unclassified), because the terrorists could “train to them”. Quite apart from the absurdity of the claim I also thought about another bit recently published in NYT which caused quite a lot of public discussion, including some choice comments from the preznit himself… the MoveOn ad.

  • This shouldn’t come as a surprise. $hrub said something to the effect that “you can’t wiretap someone without a warrant” and then we found out they have been using illegal wiretaps all along and the Presidummy was fully aware of it. “Laws are for little people” like Leona Helmsly said “paying taxes is for little people.” $hrub considers himself and his dedicated followers above the law. Isn’t this the kind of president impeachment was originally intended for when they came up with the idea of impeachment?

  • …she refuses to divulge the specifics of the Feb. ‘05 memo “narrowing” of the definitions which were too broadly described in the Dec. ‘04 one (now unclassified), because the terrorists could “train to them”.

    Well, why not, since they aren’t illegal? In fact, maybe the entire world should “train to” them because by these actions they’ll be spreading love, peace, well-being, and dignity throughout the civilized world.

  • Pingback: The Heretik : Specfics

  • Good Lord Nancy Pelosi! Is impeachment still “off the table?” When will our elected representatives in the House and Senate rise up and call the people responsible for these crimes to account? Are we all still so in shock because of 9/11 that we cannot recognize the violation of longstanding American values?
    Are we still so paralyzed by the attack on our country that we cannot recover our center? It is time to set things right with the leadership of our country – they have created a terrible mess in Iraq that the next administration will have to search for a way to address, they have gone against important traditions our country has always tried to follow, and they have done these things without significant resistance from the congress or the people as a whole. How long can this continue?

    • Comments are closed.