Kurt Nimmo | Infowars | July 31, 2008

In the video here, taped at the Campus Progress journalism conference earlier this month, the Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh reveals how the neocons convened around Dick Cheney and brainstormed ways to kick off World War IV, as they fondly call their pet project to take out the Muslims and foment a contrived “clash of civilizations.”

According to Hersh, this meeting occurred after the neocons failed miserably to stage a rehashed version of the Gulf of Tonkin incident in the Strait of Hormuz, mostly because it is no longer 1964 and such Big Lies — thanks to the internet and bloggers — are far more difficult to float. “For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there,” quipped LBJ about the imaginary act of North Vietnamese boats supposedly attacking U.S. ships, leading to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and undeclared war in Southeast Asia, ultimately resulting in the death of nearly 60,000 Americans and around 3 million Southeast Asians.

In an exclusive Think Progress story, we learn the meeting took place in Cheney’s office and the subject on the table was “how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington,” part of an ongoing effort to provide an excuse to attack Iran. “There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war,” Hersh explains. “The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build — we in our shipyard — build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up.”

Hersh would have us believe this scenario did not play out because “you can’t have Americans killing Americans,” an absurd explanation considering the fact the attacks of September 11 were just that — “Americans killing Americans,” a calculated and cold-blooded act of mass murder carried out by elements in the U.S. government as a “new Pearl Harbor,” a cynical pretext to launch the “war on terror,” now grinding into its seventh year.

Ominously, these “ideas” hark back to Operation Northwoods, the JSC plan to stage a false flag terror event — or a number of events — designed to provide a pretext to invade Cuba and take out Fidel Castro. Such “ideas” included “friendly Cubans” attacking the U.S. base at Guantanamo, shooting down a drone disguised as a chartered civil airliner and blaming it on Cuba, inciting riots and staging terror attacks in Miami, and other terrorist acts. Fortunately, then Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, put a kibosh to this insane plan.

More recently, in January, 2003, in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion George Bush and Tony Blair discussed painting planes in United Nations colors “in order to provoke an attack which could then be used to justify material breach” and thus set in motion an invasion, according to Philippe Sands, a leading British human rights lawyer (see Revealed: Bush and Blair discussed using American Spyplane in UN colors to lure Saddam into war, Channel Four News).

In fact, the neocons have not rested in their effort to foment war and force the support of the American people by way of deception. On May 16, 2008, Paul Joseph Watson, writing for Prison Planet, noted confidential recordings released under the Freedom of Information Act revealing the efforts of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and top military analysts to cook up another terrorist attack on America in order to gain support for their ambitious plans to decimate Muslim culture. “The most extraordinary exchange takes place when Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong bemoans shrinking political support for Neo-Con war plans on Capitol Hill and suggests that sympathy for the Bush administration’s agenda will only be achieved after a new terror attack,” writes Watson. “Rumsfeld agrees that the psychological impact of 9/11 is wearing off and the ‘behavior pattern’ of citizens in both the U.S. and Europe suggests that they are unconcerned about the threat of terror.” Rumsfeld characterizes Bush as “a victim of success” because America has not suffered “an attack in five years” and for Rumsfeld and the neocons this state of affairs is indeed lamentable.

Obviously, the neocons will stop at nothing — including the murder of more Americans in a false flag terror attack — to realize their agenda.

Finally, Sy Hersh casts suspicion on himself during the interview when he admits he did not bother to write an article on the neocon casus belli brainstorming session because it did not go forward. “So I can understand the argument for not writing something that was rejected — uh maybe. My attitude always towards editors is they’re mice training to be rats…. But the point is jejune, if you know what that means.” It was “jejune” because Hersh believes the “American public, if you get the right incident, the American public will support bang-bang-kiss-kiss. You know, we’re into it.”

Of course, that may be true for some of the American public, even a large segment, but for those of us up to speed on the master plan of the neocons — total war, so the children of the neocons will “sing great songs about us years from now,” as Richard Perle once said — this comment stinks of irresponsibility. It avoids discussion of the criminal mindset of the neocons, who are determined to start WW IV, even if such a conflict leads to the distinct possibility the Prince of Darkness’ children may not be around to sing great songs.

I have to admit I was a bit worried when I heard Channel 4 were making a film about Bobby Sands and the Maze hunger strike. Having sat through shite like Ken Loach and Rebecca O'Brien's 'The Wind that Shakes the Barley' I feared the worst. But 'Hunger', by Turner Prize winner Steve McQueen, is an artist's film of intense emotional impact and real insight. And it belongs on the big screen, its compositions and rhythms fill the space. That it is a London born film-maker, a black film-maker, that provides such insight into so fraught and sensitive an Irish story is all the more remarkable.

It was commissioned by my colleague Jan Younghusband, Commissioning Editor for Arts and Performance at Channel 4. She is a woman with a purist and committed approach to art, as I learned from working with her on projects like Big Art Project and 4mations. 'Hunger' was five years in the making and conception. Through her work on the Turner Prize Jan came into contact with McQueen, hooked up from time to time in a cafe on Old Compton Street and gradually homed in on this most demanding of subject-matter. Film 4, in the person of Peter Carlton (who I worked with last year on My Movie Mash-up/Faintheart, which amply demonstrated his ballsy approach) came in to back the film as a theatric offering. I have to say, having just emerged from a viewing of the finished film, I couldn't be prouder to be part of an organisation that creates a work like this.

I walk past Bobby Sands regularly in the form of a Christ-like statue of him in Newry, the town in County Down where my wife was born. She grew up in Northern Ireland in the 70s and early 80s - I can hardly imagine how she and her sisters will watch this film. Whatever you feel about the politics behind Bobby Sands (of which most of our (British) population is incredibly ignorant, and was so back in 1980 - as a suburban London teenager it was right off my radar beyond what I gleaned from Stiff Little Fingers) the portrayal of political conviction and of inhuman bigotry is as powerful as it comes. Thatcher's voice, heard in voice-over punctuating the film from time to time, comes across as truly monstrous. Everything about its coldness and stridency speaks of the huge cultural gulf between the Lincoln grocery and a family gathering in West Belfast or Gweedore, Donegal (where the key flashback scene of the film takes place) or pretty much anywhere in Ireland or an Irish home.

My wife recalls how her life and the lives of all around her were overshadowed by the hunger strike. A time punctuated by the staggered deaths (they deliberately spaced the starts of their hunger-strikes two weeks apart to maximise the impact of their sacrifice). Looking back from the last few years it is only now she truly recognises what a troubled, hard childhood she and her contemporaries lived through. A couple of years ago we were in the (old) Tate with the children. They were copying some of the pictures in the Pop Art rooms. As we emerged from the gallery I noticed my wife was really upset. I asked her what was up and it turned out walking through a room of Richard Hamilton images of soldiers on the streets of Belfast [The State 1993] had really disturbed her and awakened ghosts. (Richard Hamilton of course also portrayed Bobby Sands draped in blanket in his picture 'The Citizen' [1981-83].)

When I first visited Newry in 1986 I was greeted by the most surreal of experiences - walking down the high street I watched British troops, armed with machine guns and equipped with radios, ducking in and out of shop doorways between little old ladies struggling along with their shopping bags. Nothing in my North London childhood had given me the slightest clue that such dark comedy was to be had on the streets of 'my country'.

On my way out of the screening I met a woman who looked pretty shaken by the experience (naturally enough). It turned out her daughter works at the Channel and she comes from Crossmaglen, Co. Armagh. Needless to say she knew the one family I know in Crossmaglen, as that is the way of Ireland. I knew the hospital she was born in in Newry, Daisyhill aka Crazyhill, as my wife was born there too. I knew her school in Kilkeel as my wife went there too. It's a small, connected place. In her family home this woman I got talking to has some of the tiny notes smuggled out of the Maze - that's how connected it is.

I thought the starvation in Sean Penn's 'Into the Wild' was painful to watch and moving but it goes nowhere near the forensic observation of this film. The skeletal bodies are resonant of Auschwitz - and the crucifixion. And yet the film captures something incredible, something transcendent about the human spirit and will.

Towards the end of the film we see a flashback of the Belfast boy on a coach traveling over the border into Donegal to attend a cross-country race put on by the Christian Brothers (purveyors, as Pete McCarthy amusingly put it, of "the carrot and stick method of Education - only without the carrot"). Behind the face of the young Bobby is a blurred swoosh of gold, low sunlight on the ferns and bogland. It represents a paradise to the starving man.

Recalling when I first went to that place - Gweedore - brings a smile to my lips. I'd followed the roadmap and came to what I thought was not far from Gweedore. I stopped at a junction, reminiscent of where Cary Grant gets off the bus in 'North-by-Northwest' and gets attacked by a crop-spraying plane. There was a small shop at the junction, outside of which stood an old fella in a flat cap. I wound down the window and asked him where Gweedore was. You're in it. Where? All around. He was trying to explain the concept of a 'townland' which was foreign to me. 'Town' I get. 'Land' and 'country' I get. But this was something in-between, half way to the imagination, between the word on the map and the ground beneath me was a cultural gap and an imaginative leap. 'Dhun na nGall' (Donegal) means 'fort of the foreigners' - foreigners have given the people there a tough time since way back - from the marauding Vikings (who probably explain my wife's love of the battle and fighting scenes in 'Gladiator') to the screws beating the living shit out of Bobby Sands and fellow prisoners with their truncheons and tattooed knuckles. The same shit these men smeared on the walls of their cells in an astonishing act of defiance for over 4 years, the shit McQueen turns into a kind of circular abstract painting in one scene. The ability of people to survive that kind of degradation and brutality for the sake of an idea is ultimately uplifting. The ability to inflict that kind of degradation and brutality is to be the subject of one of my next posts (bet you can't wait ;-) inspired by Philippe Sands' recent book Torture Team about torture in Iraq, where Steve McQueen served as a war artist in 2003.) So shifting Sands from Bobby to Philippe - not easy subjects but then 7/7 isn't an easy day...

First off, I mentioned in my articles post yesterday that the US Senate was voting on "whether to consider a windfall profits tax against the five largest U.S. oil companies and rescind $17 billion in tax breaks the companies expect to enjoy over the next decade." Well, surprise, surprise, surprise, Teh Republicans decided to block the plan, because the first item on the Republican party's platform is directly related to giving head to oil companies, and 74% of elected Republican representatives don't believe in things like global warming anyway. I really hope these peoples' records are remembered when the shit starts hitting the fan, you know, like when gas costs $10-per-gallon. How did they block the plan? I mean, ah thought them DEMONCRATS had them a majar-ty! Well, it's time for a...

CIVICS LESSON!!!!

Ahem. The Democrats' majority on the bill was 51-43, which falls short of being "filibuster-proof." A filibuster is "a procedural tactic to delay debate on a bill." So as long as the stupid babies have forty votes, they can block a bill from even being debated. Yeah, it's about as grown-up as it sounds, but it has occasionally been used for good in the past. This is why in the 2008 elections, on top of electing Barack Obama, it is extremely important that we increase the Democratic majority to SIXTY. Even 58 or 59 would probably work, since there do exist in the universe a few sane Republicans who can be brought over from the dark side. Sometimes. Sixty would be better.

Speaking of that, you should know exactly how desperate the Republicans are. They've mentally given up the White House, hold out no hopes of retaking any of Congress, because they know how disgusted the nation is with them right now. So, Talking Points Memo reports that John Ensign (R-NV), one of the 'tards who didn't support the new GI Bill, has now defined "electoral success" like this:

In a further sign that Republican hopes are fading badly, the head of the Senate GOP's campaign committee has set a new goal for the party this Fall: Not to lose too many Senate seats.

NRSC chair John Ensign has moved the goal posts...saying that the GOP will have succeeded if they don't lose more than eight seats.

Ensign pointed out that if the Dems win nine seats they'll get to the filibuster-proof magic number of 60 -- at which point, Ensign warned, "they will be able to do pretty much whatever they want."

So if the Dems can't get to a 60-seat super-majority, the GOP will have won. Talk about lowering the bar.

A quandary of their own making.

The second childish move the Republicans made in the Senate yesterday went like this:

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the use of coercive interrogation techniques. Among other witnesses, the committee heard from the FBI’s general counsel and a former FBI special agent, both of whom decried torture as ineffective and impermissible.

Halfway through the hearing, the testimony of international lawyer Philippe Sands...was suddenly interrupted, when Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) used an objection to force the Senate into recess and disrupt the hearing.

The Republicans really, really, really don't like it when their support for torture is exposed for what it is: political posturing for frothing Americans who don't know any better. Every credible intelligence expert/human rights lawyer who testifies says the same thing: What we're doing is illegal, and also, it's really ineffective. As in, produces bad intelligence. As in, waste of our time. Oh, and it's illegal. Did I mention that it's grossly illegal?

So, instead of doing their jobs, Republican senators decide to be obsructionists.

Harry Reid was Not Happy:

(h/t Think Progress)

As I said, we must work as hard as we can to expand the Democratic majority from 51 to 60. For all of ye ignorant Americans out there who have used the talking point "The president's approval rating may be low, but the Demoncrat Congressessessesssess is LOWER!", you can no longer claim that the Senate rules have not been explained to you. The Democratic party has tried to do a lot of good things since they regained control in 2007. The Republican party has blocked a lot of good things.

"Folter-Team - Rumsfeld's Memo und der Verrat an Amerikas Werten" betitelte Sands sein neues Buch (erhältlich in den USA ab 13. Mai), das das schockierende Ergebnis seiner Nachforschung öffentlich macht. Nicht alles darin ist neu, aber vieles wurde bislang nicht in dieser Deutlichkeit zusammengetragen und niedergeschrieben.

Immer klarer stellt sich die Frage, was George W. Bush und seine Riege von den Vorgängen in Guantanamo gewusst haben. Es scheint unvorstellbar, dass irgend etwas von der dortigen Gewalt gegen die "Inhaftierten" den mächtigsten Führern des amerikanischen Staates verborgen gewesen sein soll, schließlich waren die eingangs erwähnten Juristen im direkten Umfeld der politischen Elite angesiedelt:

- David Arlington, ehemaliger Rechtsberater von Vizepräsident Dick Cheney, heute dessen Stabschef

- Alberto Gonzales, persönlicher Rechtsberater von George W. Bush und späterer Justizminister

- Jim Haynes, Pentagon-Chefjurist

Und gleichfalls immer deutlicher stellt sich die Frage nach der politischen, moralischen oder sogar strafrechtlichen Verantwortung für die Folter im Gefängnis von Guantanamo oder Abu Ghraib.

How much more abuse of the law will it take before Congress gets their shit together and impeaches this whole administration? I really do get frustrated with them when this sort of article comes out. Since the stolen election this administration has done everything it could to prove just how much utter contempt they have for the American People, Congress and the rest of the world. I don't know that anyone is surprised by anything they attempt any more, but I am heartily sick of seeing this stuff. And I am heartily sick of a do nothing Congress.

We've known about the lies that led to Iraq for HOW long now? Is there anyone on this planet who doesn't know about this and is feeling anything but contempt for America right now? Do one thing right before his mad man gets out of office or stops the next election. Impeach the man, and impeach cheney. And while you are at it, fire everyone associated with them.

The exception claimed by Cheney’s counsel came in response to requests from congressional Democrats that David Addington, the vice-president’s chief of staff, testify about his involvement in the approval of interrogation tactics used at Guantanamo Bay.

Ruling out voluntary cooperation by Addington, Cheney lawyer Kathryn Wheelbarger said Cheney’s conduct is “not within the [congressional] committee’s power of inquiry”.

“Congress lacks the constitutional power to regulate by law what a vice-president communicates in the performance of the vice president’s official duties, or what a vice president recommends that a president communicate,” Wheelbarger wrote to senior aides on Capitol Hill.

The exception claimed by Cheney’s office recalls his attempt last year to evade rules for classified documents by deeming the vice-president’s office a hybrid branch of government - both executive and legislative.

Reading this article from CommonDreams and seeing the sneer on cheney's face is so typical. I am very sure they do believe themselves above the law. And why not? No one has attempted to hold them accountable for anything even though the evidence is overwhelming. And when did they amend the Constitution to say this is a special legislative AND executive branch??? I don't recall voting on it. I don't recall Congress voting on it or even discussing it. So there is no such thing as a "hybrid office" for these felons to hide behind. And until and unless they do create this "hybrid office" David Addington doesn't have a leg to stand on, although he may pray he does...

I've never heard of a criminal yet who didn't act all indignant and claim they were innocent. Oh, I'll just bet this piece of work knows he can't do anything but delay, so what is he delaying for? It can't be the end of the bush's term. Could it be so that they can destroy any damning evidence? For although they could be found guilty of destruction of evidence, they couldn't be found guilty of any actual crimes without it, or could they? Of course, there is a lot of damning evidence already out there.

But the real story lies not in whether or not David Addington will weasel out of jail. Oh, no, the real story lies in what happened behind the scenes. I doubt we'll ever know it all. I'm not sure I want to know it all. But their perversion of the laws of this great nation deserve the worst punishments we can devise for the longest time possible. I consider them terrorists and would demand that they receive the same treatment as other terrorists.

But back to our story here... And that is alluded to in these few lines here:

However, Philippe Sands QC, law professor at University College, London, has agreed to appear in Washington and discuss the revelations in Torture Team, his new book on the consequences of the brutal tactics used at Guantanamo.

Excerpts from Torture Team were previewed exclusively by the Guardian earlier this month.

I just had to find out what this was about. So I did a google search for this article. And here is what I came up with:

Stress, hooding, noise, nudity, dogs

It was the young officials at Guantánamo who dreamed up a list of new aggressive interrogation techniques, inspired by Jack Bauer from the TV series, 24. But it was the politicians and lawyers in Washington who set the ball rolling. Philippe Sands follows the torture trail right to the top

# Philippe Sands
# The Guardian,
# Saturday April 19 2008

Philippe Sands QC uncovers details of interrogation techniques at Guantánamo Bay

On Tuesday, December 2 2002, Donald Rumsfeld signed a piece of paper that changed the course of history. That same day, President Bush signed a bill to put the Pentagon in funds for the next year. The US faced unprecedented challenges, Bush told a large and enthusiastic audience, and terror was one of them. The US would respond to these challenges, and it would do so in the "finest traditions of valour". And then he signed a large increase in the defence budget.

Elsewhere in the Pentagon, an event took place for which there was no comment, no fanfare. With a signature and a few scrawled words, Rumsfeld reneged on the tradition of valour to which Bush had referred. Principles for the conduct of interrogation, dating back more than a century to President Lincoln's famous instruction of 1863 that "military necessity does not admit of cruelty", were discarded. He approved new and aggressive interrogation techniques that would produce devastating consequences.

The document had been drafted a few days earlier by the general counsel at the Defence Department, William J Haynes II (known as Jim Haynes), Rumsfeld's most senior lawyer. The Haynes memo was addressed to Rumsfeld and copied to two colleagues: General Richard Myers, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the most senior military official in the US, and Doug Feith, under-secretary of defence for policy and number three at the department.

Attached to the memorandum were four short documents. The first was a legal opinion written by Lieutenant Colonel Diane Beaver, a staff judge advocate at Guantánamo. The second, a request for approval of new methods of interrogating detainees from Beaver's boss, Major General Mike Dunlavey, the army's head of interrogation at Guantánamo. The third was a memorandum on similar lines from General Tom Hill, commander of US Southern Command (Southcom, covering Central and South America). Last, and most important, was a list of 18 techniques of interrogation, set out in a three-page memorandum.

These techniques were new to the military. Category I comprised two techniques, yelling and deception. Category II included 12 techniques, aiming at humiliation and sensory deprivation, including stress positions, such as standing for a maximum of four hours; isolation; deprivation of light and sound; hooding; removal of religious and all other comfort items; removal of clothing; forced grooming, such as shaving of facial hair; and the use of individual phobias, such as fear of dogs, to induce stress.

Finally came Category III. These methods were to be used for only a very small percentage of detainees - the most uncooperative (said to be fewer than 3%) and exceptionally resistant individuals - and required approval by the commanding general at Guantánamo. In this category were four techniques: the use of "mild, non-injurious physical contact", such as grabbing, poking and light pushing; the use of scenarios designed to convince the detainee that death or severely painful consequences were imminent for him or his family; exposure to cold weather or water; and, finally, the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of suffocation. This last technique came to be known as water-boarding, described on a chat show by the vice-president, Dick Cheney, as a "dunk in the water" and a "no-brainer" if it could save lives.

Obviously this is a must read article. It mentions the account of detainee 063, or Mohammed al-Qahtani. I had to look that up too. I found the disturbing details of his detention and interrogation HERE: If you decide to read it, be aware it isn't pretty. It is disturbing to see how easily these Americans were able to use these techniques on another human being. I do not pretend to understand...

Back to the article from the Guardian though... I found this most enlightening:

Dunlavey told me that at the end of September a group of the most senior Washington lawyers visited Guantánamo, including David Addington, the vice president's lawyer, Gonzales and Haynes. "They brought ideas with them which had been given from sources in DC." When the new techniques were more or less finalised, Dunlavey needed them to be approved by Lieutenant Colonel Diane Beaver, his staff judge advocate in Guantánamo. "We had talked and talked, brainstormed, then we drew up a list," he said. The list was passed on to Diane Beaver."

According to the article, one of the most discussed influences advocating torture was the TV program 24 and the character Jack Bouer. I have to tell you that it makes me question the competence of the men and women who actually used this as a basis for their decisions. I mean, a TV show???

But can all this be justified by a TV program? I have to tell you that I find that so very hard to believe. Can these people NOT tell the difference between fantasy and reality? Just because life imitates fiction doesn't mean we should actually DO it! Don't these people believe in God? How do they reconcile what they have done with their belief in God? Are the laws of God suspended whenever it is expedient? Does going to confession make it all better? Cuz I have to tell you that I seriously doubt that is going to be good enough justification for God...

If YOU HAVE TO JUSTIFY SOMETHING, YOU ALREADY KNOW YOU ARE WRONG!

All I do know is that no one is above the law in this country. I don't care who you are or who you THINK you are. Each and every person that owes their allegiance to our Flag is subject to our laws, including the president, vice president, and everyone of their staff. Being top dog doesn't give you a get out of jail free card, it doesn't give you immunity from prosecution either. Course, maybe they can buy justice... I hear it happens all the time.

America's most senior general was "hoodwinked" by top Bush administration officials determined to push through aggressive interrogation techniques of terror suspects held at Guantánamo Bay, leading to the US military abandoning its age-old ban on the cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners, the Guardian reveals today.

General Richard Myers, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff from 2001 to 2005, wrongly believed that inmates at Guantánamo and other prisons were protected by the Geneva conventions and from abuse tantamount to torture.

Original DVD cover.

In his new book, Torture Team, Philippe Sands QC, professor of law at University College London, reveals that:

· Senior Bush administration figures pushed through previously outlawed measures with the aid of inexperienced military officials at Guantánamo.

· Myers believes he was a victim of "intrigue" by top lawyers at the department of justice, the office of vice-president Dick Cheney, and at Donald Rumsfeld's defence department.

· The Guantánamo lawyers charged with devising interrogation techniques were inspired by the exploits of Jack Bauer in the American TV series 24.

· Myers wrongly believed interrogation techniques had been taken from the army's field manual.

The lawyers, all political appointees, who pushed through the interrogation techniques were Alberto Gonzales, David Addington and William Haynes. Also involved were Doug Feith, Rumsfeld's under-secretary for policy, and Jay Bybee and John Yoo, two assistant attorney generals.

...snip...

The Bush administration has tried to explain away the ill-treatment of detainees at Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq by blaming junior officials. Sands' book establishes that pressure for aggressive and cruel treatment of detainees came from the top and was sanctioned by the most senior lawyers.

...snip...

Larry Wilkerson, a former army officer and chief of staff to Colin Powell, US secretary of state at the time, told the Guardian: "I do know that Rumsfeld had neutralised the chairman [Myers] in many significant ways.

"The secretary did this by cutting [Myers] out of important communications, meetings, deliberations and plans.

"At the end of the day, however, Dick Myers was not a very powerful chairman in the first place, one reason Rumsfeld recommended him for the job".

En su nuevo libro “Torture Team”, Philippe Sands QC, profesor de derecho en el University College de Londres, revela que los mandos militares de los Estados Unidos se vieron sobrepasados por la acción de un grupo de altos funcionarios de la administración Bush, muchos de ellos abogados, dependientes del Secretario de Defensa Ronald Runsfeld (que renunció al cargo en 2006) o del Vicepresidente Dick Cheney. Entre ellos figuran Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee y John Yoo.

Un memo de tres páginas elaborado por estos abogados ha posibilitado oficialmente el uso de la tortura sobre los detenidos de Guantánamo, y lleva el visto bueno de Runsfeld, estableciendo una lista de 18 técnicas de interrogatorio:

La categoría I comprende dos técnicas, los gritos y el engaño. La Categoría II incluye 12 técnicas, cuyos objetivos son la humillación y la privación sensorial, incluyendo posiciones de estrés, tales como estar de pie hasta un máximo de cuatro horas; aislamiento; privación de la luz y el sonido, el encapuchamiento y la eliminación de todas las prendas religiosas o de comodidad personal llegando hasta la eliminación de las prendas de vestir; aseo forzado, como el rapado de pelo facial, y la utilización de las fobias, como el miedo a los perros, para inducir estrés.

Por último está la Categoría III. Estos métodos se orientan a sólo un porcentaje muy pequeño de los detenidos - la mayoría por la falta de cooperación (calculada en menos del 3%) y a individuos excepcionalmente resistentes - y exige su aprobación por el comandante general de Guantánamo. En esta categoría figuran cuatro técnicas: el uso de "leve, no perjudicial contacto físico", como sacudir, empujar, someter a la luz, así como el uso de escenas para convencer al detenido de que la muerte o graves consecuencias dolorosas son inminentes para él o para su familia; exposición al frío o el agua; y por último, el uso de una toalla mojada y el goteo de agua para inducir a la idea errónea de asfixia.

Las técnicas se justifican, según el memo, por haber "un objetivo público legítimo en la obtención de la información para la protección de la seguridad nacional de los Estados Unidos". Los detenidos fueron definidos por Runsfeld como “lo peor de lo peor”.

Aplicadas en terreno, las instrucciones del memo han ido tomando la forma de un patrón, a saber: 20 horas al día en sesiones de interrogatorio, seguidas de cuatro horas de sueño. La privación de sueño aparece como un elemento central, junto con las posiciones de estrés y la humillación constante, incluyendo la humillación sexual. Estas técnicas se han complementado con el uso del agua, episodios de deshidratación, el uso de tubos intravenosos, ruido, desnudamientos, etc. Un interrogador incluso amarró una correa a un prisionero, le llevó alrededor de la habitación y se le obligó a realizar una serie de movimientos propios de los perros. Fue obligado a vestir de mujer sujetándosele en la cabeza un tanga.

artículo completo en THE GUARDIAN aquí>>>

I know this has already been revealed by Philippe Sands in the April May issue of Vanity Fair. However, after reading this excerpt from Sands' upcoming book, Torture Team: Deception, Cruelty And The Compromise Of Law, I still can't fathom the callous indifference of the sick fucking bastards who drew up the blueprints for US torture policy:

[Major General Michael E Dunlavey, former head of military interrogations at Guantánamo] told me that at the end of September a group of the most senior Washington lawyers visited Guantánamo, including David Addington, the vice president's lawyer, Gonzales and Haynes. "They brought ideas with them which had been given from sources in DC." When the new techniques were more or less finalised, Dunlavey needed them to be approved by Lieutenant Colonel Diane Beaver, his staff judge advocate in Guantánamo. "We had talked and talked, brainstormed, then we drew up a list," he said. The list was passed on to Diane Beaver."

[...]

Beaver told me she arrived in Guantánamo in June 2002. In September that year there was a series of brainstorming meetings, some of which were led by Beaver, to gather possible new interrogation techniques. Ideas came from all over the place, she said. Discussion was wide-ranging. Beaver mentioned one source that I didn't immediately follow up with her: "24 - Jack Bauer."

It was only when I got home that I realised she was referring to the main character in Fox's hugely popular TV series, 24. Bauer is a fictitious member of the Counter Terrorism Unit in LA who helped to prevent many terror attacks on the US; for him, torture and even killing are justifiable means to achieve the desired result. Just about every episode had a torture scene in which aggressive techniques of interrogations were used to obtain information.

Jack Bauer had many friends at Guantánamo Bay, Beaver said, "he gave people lots of ideas." She believed the series contributed to an environment in which those at Guantánamo were encouraged to see themselves as being on the frontline - and to go further than they otherwise might.

Under Beaver's guidance, a list of ideas slowly emerged. Potential techniques included taking the detainees out of their usual environment, so they didn't know where they were or where they were going; the use of hoods and goggles; the use of sexual tension, which was "culturally taboo, disrespectful, humiliating and potentially unexpected"; creating psychological drama. Beaver recalled that smothering was thought to be particularly effective, and that Dunlavey, who'd been in Vietnam, was in favour because he knew it worked.

The younger men would get particularly agitated, excited even: "You could almost see their dicks getting hard as they got new ideas." A wan smile crossed Beaver's face. "And I said to myself, you know what, I don't have a dick to get hard. I can stay detached."

Beaver confirmed what Dunlavey had told me, that a delegation of senior lawyers came down to Guantánamo well before the list of techniques was sent up to Washington. They talked to the intelligence people, they even watched some interrogations. The message from the visitors was that they should do "whatever needed to be done", meaning a green light from the very top - from the lawyers for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the CIA.

"Jack Bauer had many friends at Guantánamo Bay, Beaver said, "he gave people lots of ideas. ""

"You could almost see their dicks getting hard as they got new ideas."

"[W]hatever needed to be done".

International law and years of precedent, casually tossed under the post-9/11 bus by junior sadists (after being given the "green light from the very top") obsessed with a fictional fucking TV show; words fail me.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

Andrew Sullivan has already said on MSNBC that these revelations will soon result in international indictments for war crimes for senior Administration officials. Will there be any fallout in the US?

Vanity Fair - “The Green Light”

Amy Goodman interviews Philippe Sands on Democracy Now!