White House Ignored Torture Warnings

Randall Mikkelsen writes for Reuters: "'The White House, the Defense Department, and the CIA were ignoring advice that was coming from people who were charged with enforcement of the law,' said Chris Anders, senior legislative counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union."

Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball write for Newsweek: "The long awaited 370-page Justice report on the abuse issue may be the most authoritative public account yet on the fierce internal struggles within the Bush administration over how terror suspects should be interrogated. . . .

"The clashes first arose in March 2002 after [Abu] Zubaydah -- allegedly Al Qaeda's logistics chief -- was captured in a gunfight in Pakistan and was severely wounded. He was then taken to a secret CIA facility for medical treatment and interrogation, according to the report.

"At first, the report states, two FBI agents were permitted to question Zubaydah, assisted in his treatment and developed his trust, using the bureau's traditional 'rapport-building' techniques of interrogation. This soon led to a breakthrough in which a newly cooperating Zubaydah identified a photograph of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the operative known as 'Muktar' who was the mastermind of the September 11 attacks.

"But within a few days, CIA interrogators showed up on the scene, dismissed what Zubaydah was giving the FBI as 'throw-away information' and began aggressive new interrogation techniques.

"(Although the specific techniques are blacked out in the public version of the Justice report, agency officials have since confirmed that, among other methods, he was subjected to waterboarding -- a technique that involves strapping a detainee to a board and dousing him with a wet towel in an effort to simulate drowning.) When one of the FBI agents questioned the use of the techniques, he was told by the CIA interrogators at the scene that the methods were approved 'at the highest levels' and that he would not get in trouble."

Evan Perez writes in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) that the report "is likely to bolster calls in Congress for the Bush administration to more fully account for legal opinions that led to the alleged abuses. Congressional Democrats and some Republicans have called on the White House to withdraw objections to legislation that would explicitly ban the CIA from using the types of interrogations that critics consider torture. White House spokesman Tony Fratto said 'the abuse of prisoners is not and has never been U.S. policy.' . . .

"New York Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler, chairman of a House subcommittee investigating interrogation practices, said the report adds to questions about whether senior White House officials approved of tactics now discredited. 'It is time for the key architects of this policy to be held accountable,' he said."

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers said in a statement: "While I take comfort in knowing that, for the most part, FBI field agents followed the agency's policies regarding interrogations, I find it very disturbing that many senior FBI and DOJ officials failed to take strong action after identifying interrogation abuses. It is my hope that upcoming testimony before our committee from David Addington, John C. Yoo, John Ashcroft, Daniel Levin, and Douglas Feith will help me understand better why these gaps in policy existed and whether Congress needs to take further action."

Iran Watch

Steven Lee Myers writes in the New York Times: "The White House sharply criticized a news organization on Tuesday for the second time in two days over reports about administration policy toward Iran, dismissing an Israeli report that President Bush was preparing to order an attack on Iran before leaving office in eight months.

"The White House released a statement disputing a report in The Jerusalem Post that a senior administration official had told Israelis during the president's visit last week that Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney supported military action against Iran. . . .

"The statement, following an even angrier attack on NBC the day before, appeared to reflect a heightened sensitivity to what Mr. Bush's aides view as mischaracterizations of his intentions in confronting Iran over its pursuit of nuclear enrichment, its involvement in Iraq and its support of the militant Islamic groups Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian areas.