Another Backfire in Iraq

Torture Watch

Scott Shane writes in the New York Times: "In a flurry of oversight that some critics say comes years too late, Congress is pressing Bush administration officials on a still-unanswered question: How did the United States come to embrace harsh interrogation methods it had always shunned?

"The interrogation techniques themselves have been repeatedly discussed, and administration officials have been forced to explain why waterboarding, a simulated drowning technique of torturers dating back to the Spanish Inquisition, was not torture when used by the C.I.A.

"But it has never been clear what roles were played by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and their subordinates in approving the interrogation techniques used after the Sept. 11 attacks against terrorism suspects. Only gradually has the fog of secrecy begun to lift, and two hearings on Tuesday showed there is a long way to go. . . .

"More testimony on interrogation is coming, some of it from officials with firsthand knowledge of how the policies were developed, including those that applied to the secret prisons that the C.I.A. established overseas. . . .

"Human rights advocates are heartened. 'Members of Congress are beginning to connect the dots,' said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union. 'First they blamed the privates and the field operatives, then the generals. But now Congress is finally beginning to ask who made the ultimate decisions at the top.'"

Bob Deans covered the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday and writes for Cox News Service: "Retired FBI interrogator John Cloonan said most terrorist suspects detained after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks knew nothing about al Qaeda's operational plans and that subjecting them to harsh questioning wouldn't produce accurate and reliable information.

"Instead, he said, al Qaeda has used reports of U.S. prisoner abuse as a recruiting tool."

From Cloonan's prepared statement: "There are 3 questions I would like this committee to ponder. Has the use of coercive interrogation techniques lessened Al Qaeda's thirst for revenge against the US? Have these methods helped to recruit a new generation of jihadist martyrs? Has the use of coercive interrogation produced the reliable information its proponents claim for it? I would suggest that the answers are 'no', 'yes' and 'no'. Based on my experience in talking to al Qaeda members, I am persuaded that revenge, in the form of a catastrophic attack on the homeland, is coming, that a new generation of jihadist martyrs, motivated in part by the images from Abu Ghraib, is, as we speak, planning to kill American and that nothing gleaned from the use of coercive interrogation techniques will be of any significant use in the forestalling this calamitous eventuality.

"Torture degrades our image abroad and complicates our working relationships with foreign law enforcement and intelligence agencies. If I were the director of marketing for al Qaeda and intent on replenishing the ranks of jihadists. I know what my first piece of marketing collateral would be. It would be a blast e-mail with an attachment. The attachment would contain a picture of Private [Lynddie] England pointing at the stacked, naked bodies of the detainees at Abu Ghraib. The picture screams out for revenge and the day of reckoning will come. The consequences of coercive intelligence gathering will not evaporate with time."

Impeachment (Non) Watch

Ben Pershing writes in The Washington Post: "Having failed in efforts to impeach Vice President Cheney, Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) escalated his battle against the administration this week by introducing 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush, using a parliamentary maneuver that will probably force a vote today.

"Kucinich's impeachment measure accuses Bush of taking the country to war in Iraq under false pretenses; he introduced it as a 'privileged resolution,' which requires the House to take it up within two legislative days. Any lawmaker may offer a privileged resolution, but it is usually done only by party leaders.

"Kucinich, upon introducing his articles of impeachment Monday evening, insisted on reading the resolution into the Congressional Record, a process that took nearly five hours. He finished reading it late yesterday after the close of legislative business.