Why did they *stop* waterboarding?

[underpants]

David Schuster just asked Ron Christie this on MSNBC

I had not heard that question asked before. I did not catch Christie's answer* but I am willing to bet that his non-answer included "9/11" somehow.

This is a great question and further amplifies that the thing that will do Cheney et al in on this is the timeline.

Schuster said (paraphrased) "If waterboarding was so effective and so necessary why did they stop doing it in their second term?"

Christie had stated that the Obama administration was signaling to terrorists what tactics they planned to use and that the terrorists could train against it, then Schuster asked the question.













*(TiVo started recording something before I could flip back and hear)

[stop the bleeding]

1. Interesting question

Will check back later to see where this thread goes.

[underpants]

6. I thought so too

It didn't hit me until I went to do something and I thought "DAMN that was a really good question"

[ejpoeta]

2. here's the thing....

i keep thinking about what jesse ventura said on larry king about how he could get cheney to admit to the sharon tate murders. they were getting information from normal interrogation techniques. they wanted certain information... and if they tortured these guys, do you think they could get them to say there was an al quaida iraq link? they weren't interested in real information.... they wanted certain information. kind of like telling the olc guys to make it legal.

[underpants]

3. They based it on Chinese tactics in the Korean War

as per a 1957 US Army report on what the Chinese did to American POW's

The much discussed talking point is that they were using tactics used to create false admissions (for propaganda purposes) to illicit true, real, useful information which of course makes no sense. That is taking this a step past what we know. They weren't interested in real or useful information they were interested in false admissions (Iraq link to alQaeda). There is always a very simple explanation for everything.

[ejpoeta]

5. just sends a chill down my back. imagine them getting away with this.

what will the next incarnation be!!

[LSK]

4. Bush won reelection and the non-justification for invading Iraq didnt hurt that

[underpants]

7. Yeah but they can't say that publicly

well actually they probably could and their noise machine would drill it into people's heads

[Traveling_Home]

8. I found when - last time was March 2003 - same month we invaded Iraq nt

[underpants]

9. Yeah that is when

Rachel Maddow had a complete recap here-with interview with Delfour and Windrem--very interesting
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x312708

March 2003 was when they were waterboarding KSM 183 times. Basically saying "TELL US WHY WE ARE INVADING THAT COUNTRY!!!" :grr:

[ColbertWatcher]

10. Damn good question. n/t

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. Don't know for sure

but Jane Mayer's book, "The Dark Side" indicates that most of the really awful stuff seemed to die down around the end of Bush's first term, particularly after the Abu Gharib photos surfaced. I think a lot has to do with Bush choosing not to listen as much to Cheney and (David) Addington and more to Rice, hence the increasingly "diplomatic" tone of his second term. It seems like the majority of Bush's second term, however, was spent rationalizing, covering up, making excuses, and doing some major CYA for what happened during the first term. I guess that, in some small way, we should be grateful that the PNAC didn't have Bush's ear quite as much during his second term and, as we know, most of the PNAC crowd went elsewhere during his second term.

[underpants]

14. This will some of post #12 seems the most likely answer

thanks

[Proud Liberal Dem]

15. You're welcome

Also to add: I believe that Mayer reported that after Bybee and Yoo moved on, Bush, et. al was unable to find a replacement for OLC that was willing to back up what Bybee and Yoo proposed. I believe that Jack Goldsmith, their replacement, was actually a bit appalled at what Bybee and Yoo had written earlier and struggled with writing a new memo- one more in line with the rule of law. I believe that he ended up crafting a MUCH narrower memo and then left (or was forced out of) OLC. Mayer seems to indicate that Cheney and particularly Cheney's COS Addington, were still trying to find ways to circumvent the law to somehow keep torture/EIT on the table pretty much right up to the end of Bush's second term.

[underpants]

16. Addington

Addington is the name that has been conspicuously missing from this whole discussion.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

17. You're absolutely right

I had never really heard much about him until I read Mayer's book. He apparently played a VERY prominent role in the torture/EIT-advocating vociferously for them even after pretty much everybody else had realized that they had gone too far and sworn them off. The UNELECTED scumbag (I'd say worse but there ARE rules here, of course) seemed to be pretty much be running the entire legal apparatus of the Bush (mis-)administration. Yeah, WHAT is with HIS absence in this whole debate??????!!! I'd highly recommend that you pick up Mayer's "The Dark Side," as well as Ron Suskind's "One Percent Solution" for a good in-depth look at the "war on terror". "One Percent Solution" covers events from 9/11 through the 2004 Presidential Election. Mayer covers events from 9/11 all the way up through 2006 (Military Commissions Act was one of the last few things she discussed). Both books were rather eye-popping and jaw-dropping. After reading both of them, particularly "The Dark Side", I came away absolutely convinced that somebody HAS to go after the Bush (mis-)administration. There is just too much malfeasance and blood on their hands to simply "move on" IMHO.

Based on the aforementioned books, somebody needs to go after the following individuals criminally for their role in allowing torture to occur (in no particular order):

1.) Bush
2.) Cheney
3.) Tenet
4.) Addington
5.) Bybee
6.) Yoo
7.) Rumsfeld
8.) Rove(?)
9.) Gonzales(?)

[underpants]

18. Have read the "One Percent Solution"

Suskind's "The Price of Loyalty" (Paul O'Neill) also lets you know everything you need to know about loyalty over competence with this cast of characters

of course DiIulio's letter to Suskind tells you how centralized the policy appparatus was with them. Staff, who really are the best brightest and most dedicated, were irrelevant. These decisions had already been made. From day one.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/DiIulio.html

This is part of their problem now. They were so naive (that is the best word to describe them) that they centralized things so much that now they have no one to blame except for a small circle. After 9/11 and the Yellow cake fiasco they had no one to blame except Hadley so they did and no one lost their job. They moved Condi over to State because they had no one else they could trust. No one else was truly loyal.

I will check the library for "The Dark Side" looks like a great book.

[stray cat]

12. I think in 2003 and I think the CIA refused to perform it any longer

[malaise]

13. Because of the scandal following those photos n/t