Interrogation Debate Sharply Divided Bush White House

[kpete]

Source: New York Times

Interrogation Debate Sharply Divided Bush White House

By MARK MAZZETTI and SCOTT SHANE
Published: May 3, 2009

WASHINGTON — The proclamation that President George W. Bush issued on June 26, 2003, to mark the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture seemed innocuous, one of dozens of high-minded statements published and duly ignored each year

The United States is “committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example,” Mr. Bush declared, vowing to prosecute torture and to prevent “other cruel and unusual punishment.”

But inside the Central Intelligence Agency, the statement set off alarms. The agency’s top lawyer, Scott W. Muller, called the White House to complain: The statement by the president could unnerve C.I.A. interrogators he had authorized to use brutal tactics on Al Qaeda prisoners, Mr. Muller said, raising fears that political winds could change and make them scapegoats.

White House officials reaffirmed their support for the C.I.A. methods. But the exchange was a harbinger of the conflict between the coercive interrogations and the United States’ historical stance against torture that would deeply divide the Bush administration and ultimately undo the program.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/us/politics/04detain.html?_r=1&hp

[NightWatcher]

1. doesnt sound like a divided WH to me. Sounds like the CIA wanted to cover their ass

bush- in favor
condi- in favor
dick- really
WH attys- in favor

No one at CIA wanted to get caught holding the bag. Goss wanted the ok from DOJ to protect himself

[CJCRANE]

2. Bush MO...say something then do the opposite. nt

[Gman]

3. The WH may have said one thing, but the VP had the CIA doing whatever

he wanted them to be doing.

[L. Coyote]

8. Bush is where the buck stops!

[McCamy Taylor]

4. Sounds like Cheney wanted OPEN torture, Rice wanted SECRET torture.

Cheney's plan was to terrify the opposition with Jose Padilla and the possibility that anyone could be detained and tortured. For that, torture had to be semi-official.

Rice and the others did not care about what was done as long as they could maintain in public that it was not being done.

A fascist vs. a hypocrite.

[Downwinder]

5. If and when it ever gets to court they won't be able to plead ignorance. n/t

[EFerrari]

6. Yeah, right. And I'm the Queen of England. n/t

[L. Coyote]

7. The GREAT Divide: What they said and what they DID!

A divide as great as the difference between truth and lies.

[No Elephants]

9. So much for good faith torture. No matter what those legal opinions said, those CIA guys KNEW they

were torturing. The issue for the CIA guys was never really whether they were torturing or not, but whether Bush had their back while they were torturing. If they really believed it was not torture, then when Bush said about ending torture would not have threatened them in the least. (If the Mayor tells me that everything I am doing on his behalf is perfectly legal and I truly believe him, I don't panic if the Mayor announces a crackdown on crime.)

IMO, everything being said about torturing in good faith reliance on the legal opinions is bs.

[defendandprotect]

10. Ah, nice to see TORTURE back after being buried by flu . . . !!!

[Demeter]

11. Typical BushShit

Say anything to get a vote, do anything you like.

[stillcool]

12. wiggling to get wiggle room..

[jazzjunkysue]

13. Some wanted peanuts served during the video showings, and some wanted pizza.

But they all wanted this war and everything that went with it. It's astounding how these liars convinced everyone that they didn't know the prisons and torture would follow the Bagdad invasion. Like none of them knew exactly how a war works.

[Supersedeas]

14. another attorney's name rises from the stench of the Bush Torture flames: Scott Muller