Bush Had No Choice on Torture Ban

Evidence of 'enhanced interrogation' just kept piling up

" His statements became part of the basis for the Bush administration claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biochemical weapons. Sources tell ABC that it was later established that al Libbi had no knowledge of such training or weapons and fabricated the statements because he was terrified of further harsh treatment." (Emphasis added.)

Since these war crimes, including torture as defined in international and American law, are being done in our name, the following Brian Ross discovery should lead to a congressional investigation with subpoena powers all the way to the top of the chain of command:

"According to the sources, when an interrogator wishes to use a particular technique on a prisoner, the policy at the CIA is that each step of the interrogation process must be signed off at the highest level—by the deputy director of operations for the CIA. A cable must be sent and a reply received each time a progres- sively harsher technique is used . . . there are few known instances when an approval has not been granted. Still, even the toughest critics of the techniques say they are relatively well monitored and limited in use."

How "limited in use"? And what about those of the techniques that are war crimes under the definitions in law that I have cited? The CIA has all the information about their use. Meanwhile, around the world, and not only among our enemies, this country is increasingly seen as a habitual, egregious violator of human rights. Let's finally put the CIA under the rule of law.

We can only begin to redeem ourselves in the war on terrorism by holding publicly accountable those who have authorized, as well as committed, these "enhanced interrogation techniques." But the Democratic Party leadership appears to be afraid to make this a centerpiece of its opposition to the Bush administration.

« Previous Page